I’m not normally one to quote Bible verses. However, someone quoted the proverb above somewhere in the manosphere a few months back, and this one has stuck with me. The sheer beauty of it came to mind as I was scanning our old wedding photos about a month ago. All of our wedding photos are prints, and I wanted to make a digital copy while I know they are still in good shape. Seeing us both so unbelievably young was extremely moving and helped me appreciate the wisdom of the proverb even more.

We talk a good deal on this blog and across the manosphere about the realities of women’s sexual market value/marriage market value (SMV/MMV) as they grow older. This reality is denied to the great detriment of many women, old and young. But a loving wife who spent her youth with her husband and remains faithful and committed is in a very special position. To me my wife is just as beautiful at 37 as the day I married her when she was only 20. I would try to explain this, but I really don’t have the words. I’ll wager that most married men here will understand this, and maybe even some of the unmarried ones as well; Solomon II understands it. I’ll also bet most women will struggle to truly accept it.

One of the things which can at times be lost when discussing game is the positive side of beta. Too much beta and the man is unattractive, and a woman shouldn’t marry him. But as Athol Kay points out what is ideal (for marriage at least) is a delicate balance of alpha and beta traits. The often fierce loyalty and kindness of a beta which can so easily morph into farce when misapplied can also be incredibly noble.

This beta loyalty and attachment is the primary reason divorce tends to be so devastating for men even if they don’t have their children taken from them and aren’t abused financially by the process. Frivolous divorce blindsides these men exactly because of their kindness and loyalty; they simply can’t fathom a mind of selfish treachery because it is so foreign to their own way of thinking. These men usually do recover after a year or two, and from a SMV/MMV perspective generally have a significant advantage over their treacherous ex wife. Unlike in the movies, these men very seldom take their frivolous ex wives back once they recover.

To women of any age who are either hoping to marry or are already married, my request would be to accept that most husbands really do feel this way about a wife who took a chance on him when he was young and shared her own youth with him. It may not make sense, but then so much about men and women doesn’t make sense to the other sex. Men seldom discuss this, and my guess is we instinctively understand how risky this is from a game perspective.

For young women who wish to marry my advice would be to take your search for your future husband seriously now. Don’t waste your youth with men who won’t care about you but for a moment, even if that moment extends for several years. Just as important, don’t conduct yourself in such a way that will skew your ability to experience attraction for men to those with excessive alpha qualities. Each additional increment of alpha you find yourself needing means an equal loss in loyalty and kindness you will be able to find attractive in a husband. The way to avoid the less kind forms of game and/or the infidelity of a man with too much alpha is simply not to need this much alpha in the first place. Feel free to get as much alpha as you want (and can attract) in a husband, but understand the trade-offs.

For married women my advice would be to find any way you can to block out the whispers, and take great care of who you take counsel from; resist the urge to view your husband’s loyalty and kindness as weakness.

To unmarried men who wish to marry, use great caution and be sure to find a woman who is truly worthy of marriage.

224 Responses to Rejoice in the wife of your youth.

Totally agree on the ‘wife is just as beautiful’ thought, although mine is 39 and we met when she was 24. If anything she is more beautiful now than when we met, even after four kids. Of course I’m even more hunky than ever, too.

One of the main reasons I read this blog is to figure out what to say to my three daughters. Have you written anything that covers that apart from the para above?

A Womans youth is her dowry to her husband for marrying her and remaining commited to her for the rest of her life. So many young Women today are squandering their youth/fertility on men who have absolutely no investment in them at all and then expecting to marry in their 30’s when thei youth/sexual attractiveness is much reduced.

Her children rise up and call her blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied); and her husband boasts of and praises her, [saying],

Many daughters have done virtuously, nobly, and well [with the strength of character that is steadfast in goodness], but you excel them all.

Charm and grace are deceptive, and beauty is vain [because it is not lasting], but a woman who reverently and worshipfully fears the Lord, she shall be praised!

The rest from the KJV.

Ephesians 5:33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Instead of the male/husband bashing tendency of modern women. Women who reverence their husbands won’t reveal private things even to their best girlfriends. In the same way women complain about chivalry being a lost art, so respect for men has been sacrificed on the altar of “empowerment”.

A plain girl who respects men will have a better chance of getting and retaining a husband than the painted hottie who enjoys verbally emasculating men.

1 Corinthians 11:9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Understanding this would help a lot of women’s mental and emotional well being. The pedestalization of women undermines this truth. This is why many women will never be happy, because they expect men to be their help meets. (Gen 2:18)

Proverbs 21:19It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
Proverbs 21:9It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
Proverbs 25:24It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.

WillJust implying that one is very unlikely in this modern culture to find a wife like that.

I understood your point as you stated. I know you weren’t attacking me. I was looking beyond your statement.

When the scriptures get quoted in the manosphere (or anywhere else for that matter), the reaction by some (not necessarily you) is like the swine in Matt.7. People applaud the Bible when it fits their lifestyle, and attack it (along with the messenger) when it doesn’t.

Sorry for not clarifying that point.

It’s hard to find a good woman, but not impossible. There are virtuous women out there. I’m going to a wedding in November where two wonderful young people from my church are getting married.

Taking the last comment half a step further, as an open question to consider:

What properties or qualities should a young woman in her early 20’s already have that would lead to this desired outcome? Those are the qualities or properties that a young woman in her mid to late teens should be cultivating, developing, learning, etc., right? Women in their 20’s who do not have such properties / qualities, need to learn them – but what are they? I have my private list, Dalrock has a list of good and bad signs for a man to consider prior to marriage, there are a few more sorta kinda lists kicking around, and note that many of these items are negatives as in “this is a bad sign, avoid”. Grerp has some good suggestions; perhaps summed up in her comment “Don’t be someone who has to be ‘managed'”. There are sites that teach women some short-term behavior modification in order to “hook a man”, but it is not at all clear to me that mindset leads to the outcome Dalrock descripes.

So let’s be more specific. What, in some general terms, should be seen in the behavior of a marriage-minded young woman who wants to be the wife described above? Postives, please – we have plenty of negations from “Don’t ride the carousel” to “don’t be continuously angry” to “don’t be entitled” and so forth. What are the “Do be ….”?

Bonus question:
What properties or qualities should a woman in her 30’s have developed over the previous 10+ years to lead to this desired outcome?

Forestalling any “what about te menz”, there’s no shortage of advice for men on “how to be the man your woman wants”, most of it bad to awful, and the topic is clearly oriented towards “wife”.

“Frivolous divorce blindsides these men exactly because of their kindness and loyalty; they simply can’t fathom a mind of selfish treachery because it is so foreign to their own way of thinking. These men usually do recover after a year or two, and from a SMV/MMV perspective generally have a significant advantage over their treacherous ex wife.”

This nicely summarizes the whole process of divorce from a treacherous wife. First disbelief, then anger and pain, then recovery, and then complete fucking disbelief again over the great opportunities out there for dating.

And let me re-emphasize the word “dating”. The guys I know in this situation (me included) have no interest in a commitment.

Women don’t realize this about men: when we marry, when we make the lifelong commitment and give up so much, we choose to love YOU. We choose not to love other women. We like the way they look, but that’s about it. We don’t have sex with them, love them, or commit to them. We don’t give them our checkbooks, our honor, our time, our labor, our sweat, our names or our reputations. We’ve bonded to YOU. We’ve offered ourselves to YOU.

You are special to us. We cherish you. We treasure you.

That’s why it hurts when you lie to us. That’s why it devastates us when you’re not honest with us until much, much later. You obviously did not think much of us or trust us with the truth enough to give it to us straight. That’s why it grievously injures us when you insult us, denigrate us and belittle us.

A good and thoughtful post. I have to note that even if a woman marries a man when she is young and is sexually faithful to him, still the bonding of which you speak is not likely to happen very well if she conducts a continuous campaign of verbal assault against him. And too many women do. Listen to the ways many women talk TO their husbands and ABOUT their husbands; it is appalling.

It’s not necessary for a wife to “reverence” her husband as in the scriptural passage someone quoted above, it IS necessary for her to treat him with a modicum of respect. Too many women think that being sexually faithful is the only thing required of her.

Extravagant spending, too, can be a form of disrespect, especially when the husband is the only outside-income-earner; watching a spouise destroy one’s dreams and future security does not encourage one to feel bonded with them.

““To me my wife is just as beautiful at 37 as the day I married her when she was only 20″
“Music to my ears.”

The caveat is that a woman needs to catch the guy while she is still 20-ish.
Men are unable to mentally back-date your looks from 35 to 20, even though many women bafflingly include pictures of their younger hotter selves on their online profiles.

Actually, be glad we cannot, since we will only think about who was getting you then…

What to tell your precious little darlings: simple. Whatever their great-grandma would have told them.

So: Save your box for marriage. Children are the ultimate liability for a woman on the sex market – make damn sure you only have them with your husband. Don’t ever expect any man but your husband to appreciate your sunk costs – and treat him accordingly; he has the monopoly on appreciating what you’ve done for him. Oh, and: The men who will accept used goods with children will resent you no matter how good you work your blowjobs. And you’ll despise them, no matter how many false smiles you put on in order to keep the meal ticket. In order to max your attractiveness, marry early, stay totally faithful, show appreciation and respect.

That’s about it. Good luck to selling that to 21st century American princesses.

Dalrock says: “On the question of men wanting to marry, one point I think is baked in but bears noting is that men are more likely to value it when they are young and at a SMV disadvantage compared to their would be wife. The trade being that they would stay faithful to her when the tables turn (and the data shows they overwhelmingly do). Taking that benefit off the table makes the deal less sweet for men.”

That is true: at first the man benefits due to lower SMP compared to his wife and when quite horny, and once his status may rise in his 30s the woman whose looks decline benefits and he pays back with loyalty. Of course, once she in her 30s she can bond less due to excessive previous partner count and declined look there is little incentive for men to buy into this product. So what else could she offer?

Culturally speaking, which is to say the culture of ancient Israel, the “bride of thy youth” is the one you marry at age 13 or so, basically puberty for boys and girls. Ideally, your father would have come across with the bread for a virgin’s bride price (virgins had higher SMV in those days). Marriage was not delayed back then, and especially so, for the girls. This was the same in New Testament times, where we find Paul referencing the “expiration date for virgin girls” in I Corinthians 7.

In ancient Israel, a man who was successful in life would add more wives and concubines to his harem over the years. Thus, we have this advice, and also Malachi 2:15 “Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” It was considered to be very bad form to divorce or put away your first wife from when you were both kids.

Most of us today have no “bride of thy youth.” I think it’s actually illegal.

@ Anonymous Reader
“What properties or qualities should a young woman in her early 20′s already have that would lead to this desired outcome?”

IMO the single biggest quality that a young women (any women in fact) should develop is a baseline respect for men in general and their SO in particular. I don’t think that most women truly understand how important this is to men. When I hear women talk about respect (most often in the context of how they had been ‘disrespected’ in some way) it seems to have a rather nebulous, nice-to-have flavour to it.

But I think for men respect defines who we are and how we see ourselves – it is a central tenant of masculinity itself. Respect is how we measure how well we are doing and where we sit in the pecking order – amongst our friends, our colleagues, our neighbours but most of all with our women.

Respect is the primary tool we use to figure out if we are on the right track. It steers us, similar in the way that emotions steer women. We are simply wired that way. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. I really don’t think most women understand the power they have over most men simply by showing him appropriate respect.

The trouble is that feminism / liberealism and actively taught women that the default attitude to take with all men is disrespect. That men have to achieve the impossible just for a tiny crumb of respect. Men are still trying to use respect signals from women many of whom are simply showing men no respect at all. In this environment it is small wonder that many men are simply disengaging from women.

So, AR, I would say that any women who develops this sense of respect for men (and please note I am not talking about an unwarranted level, just a baseline, general level) is already way ahead of other women when it comes to husband hunting.

And to the women out there who doubt what I say – a challenge. Take some time to think about what you really respect in your man. Then go to him and tell him – but make sure your head is in the right place and that you are sincere – believe me most men have very finely tuned respect radars. Use the word ‘respect’ when you tell him.

This is all the more reason why Marriage really is equitable only when the people who marry are 20-22.

I kind of agree with this. One of the things that my husband and I think has made our marriage more solid is the fact that we were both so young when we married. We really took a genuine leap of faith on each other.

It’s not hard to take a leap of faith on a 35 man who is on the corporate fast track and makes $75K a year. Unless that man marries a 20 year old girl, he’s getting the short end of the deal in most cases.

THis is entirely unrelated but I have a request for a future post. More and more I encounter the argument from feminists that the world used to be matriarchal and that used to be much better. I think countering this myth will be very important in the fight for mens rights but don`t have the time to dig deeply into this myself so I am hoping someone else might. MAybe you!

To give you an overview the myth goes something like this: Everyone, even the men were better of blah, blah blah. There were no sexual shame and people would have tons of sex partners, have group sex and share partners without jelousy etc. Certain tribal cultures today are pointed to as examples of this structure or of something similar or related. Tahiti was suposedly such a free love paradise. THe trobiander islands is mentioned. Less sex craszy but still suposedly matriarchal are the naxi people in china were the women work and the men care for the children and women can choose which men can come see them at night. THere is also an erea in mexico that has a fairly female dominant structure that is suposedly great acording to these feminists.

From reading just a little bit it seems like few if any of these examples are actualy matriarchal but just matrilinear with more female power than normal but still actually more male dominated than the other way arround such as I read in an analysis of the Trobiander Islands. From a newspaper article I read about the village in mexico it seemed like most of the women there thought their men were just pathetic so there seems to be good reason to question how happy the women are with these structures. A key point I think in examining these things is to look at how well children actually do is these societies. Since the father is usually unknown it is normally either to brothers of the mother, some sort of stepdad figure or all the men in the tribe or all the men that slept with the women in the begining who takes the fathers role. I am sceptical of how well that actually works out. Roissy qouted a study that found that children in monogmous families did better than children in ploygamous families in areas were both were normal as the competition in polygamous families damaged the children and their access to resources. Everything I have read in evoloutinary theory and all studies I ahve seen on how stepfamilies and extended families work etc. indicate that the key to how well children are cared for will always be how closely related they are to the caretakers. So a brother will probably care less for his sisters children than a father would even if the brother has no known children of his own. “Stepdads” even less and when all the men in the tribe are fathers probably much, much less although there would be more of them. HTere is also the question of incest whcih would be rempant in small societies with no knowledge of paternity and because sex often starts arround age 11-13 there should be very high number of deaths of mothers and children during birth as the number of deaths of mothers and children during births are way, way higher when the girl is under 15. My guess is there are a ton of other issues with these sorts of structures that are glossed over in these accounts of suposed matriarchal paradises. I am also wondering why on earth to women would sleep with ALL of the men. Hypergamy makes this seem unlikely. If they do not then how is jealousy solved? An in depth analysis that uncovers such flaws will be key in preventing the spread of a damaging myth of a suposed matriarchal paradise. Studies that dispute wether such societies are realy matriarchies or are more balanced or male controlled but sexually very polyamorous societies would also be important. Studies and facts that dispute wether there were really a golden age of matriarchies in which everyone worhsipped goddeses and everyone was peacefull is also key. Some counters are that it seems unlikely men would have evolved to desire what we desire in women had they for most of our history been in charge and the other way arround. Another is that since scientists have calculated through DNA studies that in each generation on average 80% of females and only 40% of males had children who in turn had children it seems implausible that there have been many matriarchies as that would mean the man that did have wifes often had two or more which would give the men the power in the relationships, it also seems implausible that 60% of men would accept this without a fight so there were matriarchies they were probably highly violent. Studies I have read show that skeletons from prehistoric times show signs of death from violence in 20-40% of the cases which would indicate extreme amounts of violence so this indicates either that there were no matriarchies or that they were violent. Studies of tribes in teh amazon today indicate similar levels of violence. If any of them are actually matriarchal or close to it that would be key info. So if anyone is willing to look into this and write about it on their blog I think you will do an important job. The book sex at dawn will be a key read I think as it outlines a lot of these arguments.

Related to this myth is the talk about the Bonobo monkey. Suposedly the females have more power amongst the bonobos and they are very peaceful and have sex all the time. Resolve conflict with having sex instead of fighting etc. THis is frequently used as an argument that a female controlled human society and female controlled relationship would be better. After googling it just a little bit I found out that the scientist who had spread these ideas of the bonobos have only studied them in captivity in the US and never been to were they live in Africa. Captivity is known to change behavior radically. Those who now study them in their natural habitat have found that they do not have more heterosexual sex than certain other types of monkeys they just have homosexual sex in addition to that so if you add up all the sex they do have more but really their just more bisexual. THeir low level of violence is also in question as they have now been observed hunting an killing monkeys from other species. Still there are some possible interesting things about what is said about these monkeys that might have a grain of truth to them. Anyhow it seems a lot is myth and figuring that out I think is an important task for the manosphere as this argument is all over the web now. As part of this work I think it is a good idea to look into other matriarchal animals. From what I have read before most matriarchal animals are charactherized bu low paternal investment. The females raise the children toghether with zero or only little help from males and then the males rund of when they grow up and just roam arround on tehir own or in bands of males. This mirrors what happens with singlemomhood in the western world today and how black america largely functions. So it seems what happens when you have female dominated societies and relationships what you have is exactly what you have amongst most of the matriarchal animals which is low paternal investment. Amongst humans that means disaster as we all know. Having animal studies to back this and to counter the bonobo argument will be very important in the future. Whenever feminists bring this argument up in debates online I see a lot of people falling for it. We nned quality info and thorough debate about this to counter it as strongly as possible. THis is also a way to counter some of the general “women are always best, men and fathers are unimportant” feelings people have.

Thanks for the lovely post. I have only recently come across your blog and others like it, and I did not know some men felt the way they do about women. I was left feeling a little like I had zero value to my husband. But this post reflects how I want my husband to feel about me, and I do everything I can to make sure of it!

TFH: Why is what deti wrote repulsive to women? It’s what I would tell a woman friend, and it’s true. Is it because it’s coming from a man? What would you have him say to convey the same message, but not be repulsive? I’m very curious!

TFH: Thanks for saying it not once, but twice. I’m familiar with Roissy and The Misandry Bubble. It’s a bit different when you’re married. You can’t be all hardcore a**hole alpha all the time to a wife. I assure you that neither Dalrock, nor Athol, nor the Roissyites have arrived to revoke my mancard.

What Deti is saying is totally not repulsive, it is heart warming and it definitely works. I dislike it so much when Roissy, with all of his marriage experience, is quoted on how to make relationships last long term. He has absolutely no authority on building stable, successful relationships, and if my boyfriend were to act in a Roissy manner, we would be having serious issues.

I would encourage any man who’s looking to have more than ONS or STR to only take the advice of married men, or those who are in successful LTR; and definitely not from the Roissy types.

TFH: Thanks. I’ve used HL’s form of Game too. I’ve read Roissy’s articles.

Give it up, TFH. I’m not surrendering my mancard to you either.

FYI, my mancard is in the safe underneath my .45. Anyone who feels I should hand it over is welcome to come and ask. 😉

I think the crucial distinction is whether she is a worthy woman or not, and I don’t think that came through clearly in your original comment. Women need to know that the man’s loyalty is dependent on her being worthy. Loyalty isn’t of any value when offered by a fool. Otherwise as I said in the post what is noble morphs into farce. So to the man I would (and did) say to make sure she is worthy. I would (and did) say the same to the woman, make sure you are worthy. From reading your other comments I suspect you would agree with this. This point isn’t a given though, because far too many men today aren’t willing to make such a judgment.

I think this points out another facet to this. The husband should be clear on what he expects of his wife (to himself and to her in clear enough communication). Some minimum level of faithfulness, respect, etc. For those already married he can’t expect her to change her past, but he can expect her to be a good wife, one who is worthy of great loyalty.

The Rationalization Hamster was spotted from the beginning of civilization. Here’s a few quotes I collected from ancient Egyptian works that may be of interest to Dalrock readers:

“One does not ever discover the heart of a woman anymore than one knows the sky” – Instruction of Papyrus Insinger.

“A deep water whose course is unknown,
Such is a woman away from her husband” – Instruction of Ani.

“Do not open your heart to your wife; what you have said to her goes to the street” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

“Instructing a woman is like having a sack of sand whose side is split open” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

“When a man smells of myrrh his wife is a cat before him.
When a man is suffering his wife is a lioness before him” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

“Do not marry an impious woman, lest she give your children an impious upbringing.
If a woman is in peace with her husband they will never fare badly.
If a woman whispers about their husband they will never fare well” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

“It is in women that good fortune and bad fortune are upon earth” – Instruction of Papyrus Insinger.

“Take a wife while you’re young,
That she make a son for you;
She should bear while you are youthful,
It is proper to make people.
Happy the man whose people are many,
He is saluted on account of his progeny” – Instruction of Ani.

“Take a wife when you are twenty years old, that you may have a son while you are young” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

Of course, men don’t always appear well either:

“Do not control your wife in her house,
When you know she is efficient;
Don’t say to her, ‘Where is it? Get it!’
When she has put it in the right place.
Let your eye observe in silence,
Then you recognize her skill;
It is joy when your hand is with her.
There are many who do not know this.
If a man desists from strife at home,
He will not encounter his beginning.
Every man who founds a household
Should hold back the hasty heart.
Do not go after a woman
Let her not steal your heart” – Instruction of Ani.

“Man is even more eager to copulate than a donkey; his purse is what restrains him” – Instruction of Ankhsheshonq.

The 35-year-old guys I know that are on the “fast track” are making $300K, $400K, $500K a year.

I live in a right-to-work state with no income tax and a medium cost of living, LOL! $75K isn’t a bad living unless you live in Miami, and we don’t.

Actually, the median individual salary is about $45K a year. All those high-flyers greenlander knows pull up the average.

Money can’t really be discussed on a national basis, because cost of living varies dramatically based on local wage markets. In the county where I live, as of 2010, medium household income was 103k and median family income was 122k and the median single family home value was 528k. This is a county of over a million people, too, not a tiny rich enclave. the 100-150 mark here puts you right in the middle, income-wise, and having only an average ability to scale the cost of living curve. If you drive 3-4 hours West, to take one example, you cut incomes and costs by at least half, on average — it’s all local. Certainly in the area where I live, those on the “fast track” in their 30s and 40s are in the 300+ category at the lower end, and at the 500+ category at the higher end of the age spectrum, which makes sense given that the median household is around 125k.

Alte did a rather decent job of outlining why young men don’t marry on her website. I am in my late 20′s and well-established engineering manager at a Fortune 500. I’ve not only given up on my convictions of being a husband and father, but I have completely left the dating market wholesale. It is too much of a risk for someone who has had to watch his father and mother perish before they had a chance to see him graduate from grad school with a Masters in Aerospace Engineering.

No offense, but I hope that most of the people, in a sobering perspective, realize that there are a whole lot more male virgins who have never played the total “dating game” as their female counterparts have at that age. Many of us have grown tired and weary of constantly being denigrated and chastised for being a hair’s breadth away from being malevolent entities in the congregation due to the fact that we happen to be born with a Y-chromosome. It is for that reason that myself and other young men had to leave our church and seek God through ministering to each other. The fact of the matter is, many of those men whom you discuss as having left the church were branded as sinful pests to be rid of in the congregation because we questioned what was coming out of the pulpit regarding interpersonal relationships between husband and wife in comparison to what the Bible says of such things.

For that, we have been branded “traitors to our faith” (my ex-pastor’s words, not mine). Those of us living the difficult life of a male bond-servant of Christ cannot risk fighting a two-front spiritual war, one with the world, and one at home with a wife who considers us “too beta”. Beta and alpha were never discussed in the Bible. All the leaders in the Bible who demonstrated “alpha” qualities did so because of a time of crisis in which they had to be forged in the heat of battle. The Lord seeked out humble men, and today humility, true quiet and sober humility, are considered “beta”. Bravery and confidence are reactions to situations in which, moreso, it requires a steadfast dedication and trust in God. These qualities are meant to be defense mechanisms in times of tribulation and trial. They weren’t meant to be glamory show-off qualities when meeting a potential mate.

To be quite honest, if you have to continually keep “gaming” your spouse or helpmeet, it really means you have no foundation of trust. Gaming, at least the way I have read it, means that you have to become something that you are inherently NOT. True masculinity is indistinguishable on any given normal day from “betahood”. Frankly, at this time, myself and other single Christian brothers have forfeited our desires for family, not out of some proud and lauded claim of self-piety, but out of a reaction to the fact that women who are real wife material are exceedingly rare, if not extinct.

You can cry “NAWALT” till you are blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, that finding a true and faithful wife is akin to trying to find a piece of hay in a stack of poison needles.

To all my single Christian brothers reading this, stay true to God and forget women. Think upon what Paul said: “So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows–it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.” 1 Cor 7:8. God go with you my brothers, for women won’t.

Well how would you like it if your wife said “I still love him even though he has a beer belly” or “I still love him even though he doesn’t have any hair” or “i still love him even though he lost his job” or “I still love him even though he doesn’t make as much money as I’d like”?

rich Western women going to various Caribbean and African countries solely to have sex.

Chels, you do know that a lot of those Caribbean guys are doing it for the money, right? Not because they really “want” to, so to speak. I will admit that there *are* guys out there who genuinely like older women, Ferdinand had a piece about this crazy old grandma who managed to run through like 50 lovers a week. Such men are probably the exception rather than the norm, though–perhaps they’re just incredibly desperate.

That said, perhaps we’re going a bit too far off topic…the only thing I can really say in addition to Dalrock’s OP is that I hope that Dalrock, Athol, and every worthy man who’s found a worthy wife–regardless of how few or incredibly lucky such men may be–enjoy as blessed a time in their enrichment of each other as Ruth and Boaz did. May you find shelter under the wings of the Redeemer as your spouse does under yours.

It is OK to think such things, but not display them (much less say them outright).

Yes, it is ok even to display such things and even to say them.

Women want to know what they mean to their husbands, and how their husbands feel about them. We want to feel like and know that we’re his #1, and we don’t want to guess or be insecure about our relationship with the man that means the world to us.

Crimson says:
“we questioned what was coming out of the pulpit regarding interpersonal relationships between husband and wife in comparison to what the Bible says of such things.”

Biblical marriage, that is to say the style of marriage modeled in the Bible, is almost always polygyny. The first marriages, as in the “wife of thy youth,” were arranged by the parents. The couple dwelt with the husband’s family in “his father’s house.” Marriage date was very near and even before the onset of puberty. You’re right, none of this comes out of any pulpit.

“Beta and alpha were never discussed in the Bible. All the leaders in the Bible who demonstrated “alpha” qualities did so because of a time of crisis in which they had to be forged in the heat of battle.”

Beta and Alpha, in the reproductive sense, have nothing to do with battle, other than the fact that the victor takes the women of the fallen. God lays out the rules for claiming the women of vanquished opponents in the Mosaic Law. Nevertheless, the Bible brims with alphas, betas, and hypergamous women. Scripture provides us with the ultimate sexual alpha in the form of David, son of Jesse: poet, musician, heroic warrior, criminal, womanizer, king. The women sang his praises, elevating him above even the king, while he was still a boy. His first wife Michal accused him of deliberately exposing himself to the womenfolk while dancing “as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” Female hypergamy in the face of the Alpha David is clearly revealed in the actions of Abigail, who looted her husband’s assets and transferred them to David shortly before joining his harem. And of course there is the infamous case of the cuckold Uriah and his ultra-hypergamous spouse, Bathsheba. Uriah and Bathsheba had one of the few monogamous marriages in the entire Bible. There’s probably a message there.

“Think upon what Paul said: “So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows–it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.” 1 Cor 7:8.”

If you read on in verse 28 of the same chapter, Paul gives the reason for his recommendation that the Christians in Corinth remain in their present marital states is due to some particular unnamed crisis afflicting the Corinthians.

Women are God’s gift and are meant to be enjoyed. Apparently in some numbers, judging by the rollcall of polygynists found in the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11. There is a reason the attendance ratio in most churches is 5 women for every 3 men.

I’m with Chels on this. Too much alpha causing a woman to feel insecure about herself or the relationship could end up her turning to someone else. Destablizing from time to time works, but in long term relationships, mix up the beta from time to time as well.

Quick reading lesson: I said INDEPENDENT of his looks. Money is independent of looks. Thanks for agreeing with me. Fame can be an acceptable substitute for money, because a famous actor may be able to pull a hotter woman than a gameless millionaire.

Anyway, men don’t wear makeup, heels, or have plastic surgery.

Looks are far more important for women. When you are old and wrinkled, no amount of money will make you desirable. That is not true for men. Every woman eventually hits the wall. A point I shall forever be making, and gleefully so.

Dalrock:
“When discussing Game, what is overlooked is the positive side of ‘beta’.”

What is really overlooked is that women in our culture do not see a positive side to men. It doesn’t matter how it’s disguised with archetypes.

“A successful marriage is a blend between alpha and beta”

Nonsense. A successful marriage is based on mutual respect, not sham role-playing. If Game was really about disposing of the notion that ‘women have all the power in reationships’ it wouldn’t continually seek to appease women, now would it?

“Too much beta is considered unattractive…&c”

Really? And this why women throw themselves at metrosexual boy-toys with just as much abandon as they do outright thugs?

This whole dichotomy between ‘alphas’ and ‘betas’ means nothing. The goal of feminism is depreciation and disenfranchisement of men—and women educated under feminism act accordingly. Has anyone ever stopped to consider that these so-called ‘alpha thugs’ wouldn’t last two weeks on their own without the enabling and support of the women whom they depend on? So far from being ‘alphas’ they are weaker than most men; and that is why women pursue them. The same is true of so-called ‘betas’. Why do only the responsible, self-sacrificing ‘betas’ get wiped out in divorces &c.? Never, though, the limp-wristed, metrosexual manginas. Weakness is what links both these types; and both these types are valued (if one can use this term) in a feminised culture.

What the Roissyites mean by ‘blends of alpha and beta’ only means positive aspects of masculinity; and, by definition, anything both positive and masculine is hated by feminised women. That’s why ‘Game’ will never work on women in a feminised culture and feminised women aren’t worth the attention of any man with positive aspects of masculinity. The two things cancel each other out logically. And with non-feminised women, there’s no need for Game, since there’s no competativeness between the genders.

Men should be taught alternatives to the US dating/relationship scene; not how to accomodate themselves to it.

Women want to know what they mean to their husbands, and how their husbands feel about them. We want to feel like and know that we’re his #1, and we don’t want to guess or be insecure about our relationship with the man that means the world to us.”

@Chels

You know, I usually sit on the sidelines of this discussion and just watch. But I have to tell you that comments like yours really grind on a lot of men. Do you have any feel for how many men have bought into what you describe only to get fucked over? Do you? All the traits they exhibited as independent, successful, strong men get blunted by this message of “make sure your wife doesn’t feel insecure”. So they buy into marriage and deliver the message you want only watch over time as their wife starts to treat them with less and less respect. So fine. Blame it on a man who didn’t pick well. Blame it on a man who couldn’t figure out how to keep his wife happy. Or maybe, just maybe blame it on an entire generation that told men they had to do whatever they have to do to make sure that little lady is happy. Whatever.

Then one day they wake up and left is right and up is down. And everything that their wife describes as wrong in her life is their fault. All because they didn’t want their wife to feel “insecure”.

Have you tried to present a balanced response at times? Yes. But at least recognize that comments like you wrote above have a high potential to light up men who have been bent over and screwed. Men who now have finally taken off the rose colored glasses and see clearly. Maybe for the first time in their life.

Just bear in mind that you are commenting to a wide range of ages. Men who have run the gauntlet of life for 10 to 30 years longer than you. And I would bet that most all of them would tell you that 10 to 30 years ago they didn’t know shit. But they have the capacity to recognize that now. Some of your comments cast doubt on your capability to recognize the same thing.

The problem is that a lot of women don’t have girl game.
When society changed so drasticly, girl game got ripped apart in much the way that betas get ripped apart. Marriage has always required a mix of alpha and beta for the masculine, seductive and domestic for the feminine.

And at the risk of getting ripped apart
a certain amount submissiveness on the part of the wife with out being a door mat. Not a message that’s well received. But it’s why the beta traits need to get mixed in, otherwise your wife will feel played and unwilling to put her self out there for that kind of vulnerability.

The alpha traits are required to allow safty in being soft vulnerable and submissive. The beta is required when the wife gets scared about the possibility of being undervalued or taken advantage of by putting herself in that position.

Alpha and Beta are meaningless concepts even from this horrific appeal to tradition that gamesters use just like paleo-diet enthusiasts. Watch how many so-called “Alpha thugs” and his harem could form a successful tribe to defend itself from a band of “beta” males. They would spill his brain-matter on the edge of a rock along with his flayed offspring and divide the chattel women among themselves.

“He has absolutely no authority on building stable, successful relationships”

That’s actually not true, based on his suggestions Roissy was widely thought to have been in at least one two-year relationship in the recent past.

As a matter of fact, Roissy’s work is far more focused on an overall philosophical discussion of male and female relations, and tactical/situational advice. He references a lot of PUA, but he cultivated an image of a brooding loner rather than an extroverted club guy.

To my knowledge (and I’ve read pretty much the entire site) He hasn’t come out against relationships, in fact he ran a whole week of posts on LTR game (that was where Dave from Hawai’i was quoted to dramatic and spectacular effect) and has had other posts with tips on how to avoid tingle-killing betatude in a relationship.

That doesn’t mean Roissy is making his bread as a first-and-foremost LTR advisor. What he has said is that few women are worth commitment (thus the rest are pump and dump material) and he’s advised to not get married.

Roissy has a curious philosophical viewpoint: it’s clear he deeply reveres classical romantic ideals, but maintains that modern society has made them impossible to implement – thus he recommends men creating a simulacrum of that romance without investing much, thus getting sexual access to women, and not banking on finding that woman who is worth investing in because she is so rare.

You don’t have to agree with it, but it’s pitiful women on the Net are so enraged by Roissy when they have little idea what he actually says except to state that there’s a dearth of quality women.

Women need to know that the man’s loyalty is dependent on her being worthy. Loyalty isn’t of any value when offered by a fool.

Bingo. Good behavior is what should be rewarded and reciprocated.

TFH’s reply to Dalrock
I agree 100%. The question is with only maybe 2-3 percent of women raised is a society of feral women being actually worthy, what do we do to change this? . As Crimson Viceroy stated and I kind of felt all along is that while noble we are just discussing accommodating living in a cesspool of feral women with the cops following around behind them waiting for some guy to be pointed out for arrest.
I know that christian marriage is what is best for society and a nation for raising stable and strong children. How we get there will be is where we need to focus.
Chels you must Sara of the Spearhead’s long lost cousin. You have done much to show how unwise it is to make any solution involve any kind of character from females. I am working with a guy right now and we read over printed up articles comments from these and other pages.

This is getting ridiculous, bordering on insane. I don’t know any woman who doesn’t want to know or that doesn’t care about how her husband feels about her and how he treats her. No woman in a stable relationship wants to have to play endless games or jump through loopholes just to feel loved. No woman wants to have her affection rejected or to always be the first one who shows it.

And show me the man who got dumped because he was loving with his gf or his wife.

Now this might come as a shock, but cold and aloof might work at the beginning, but it certainly doesn’t work in LTR or in marriages.

PS: Badger, a 1-2 year relationship does not count; if anything, it’s just proof he can’t make a relationship work long term.

I think cels confuses what she thinks she is attracted to which what she actually responds to. Kay specifically says you should mix alpha aloof with beta, and focus on that which you are short in. There are men who got dumped, although loving their wife a lot, because a strong expression thereof is a demonstration of lower value which women despise due to hypergamous instincts. Whenever, a woman feels to safe in a relationship, it has a list of negative consequences for men.

““Think upon what Paul said: “So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows–it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.” 1 Cor 7:8.”

If you read on in verse 28 of the same chapter, Paul gives the reason for his recommendation that the Christians in Corinth remain in their present marital states is due to some particular unnamed crisis afflicting the Corinthians.”

Because of that current crisis, Paul was also instructing married people not to get divorced, along with telling singles not to get married. If Paul’s advice only applied to a particular crisis affecting only the Corinthians, what happens when the danger passes and better conditions prevail? Can singles then get married and married couples get divorced?

That’s why I tend to go with the other interpretation of “present distress”, referring to the entire church dispensation with the trials and tribulations that all Christians endure in varying degrees (Roman 8:18). It’s best to stay single, but if you can’t deal with that, get married. If married, stay married. Most people will get married. But there are those who remain single for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, whether in good times or bad.

Besides, I could apply the “local crisis” interpretation to the current state of the Anglosphere and argue that because of gender feminism and divorce/Family Court laws, men are in serious danger, so Paul’s counsel of avoiding marriage is the best path to deal with it.

“Women are God’s gift and are meant to be enjoyed. Apparently in some numbers, judging by the rollcall of polygynists found in the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11. There is a reason the attendance ratio in most churches is 5 women for every 3 men.”

There were also murderers, drunkards, prostitutes and blasphemers in the Faith Hall Of Fame.
It’s only the blood of calvary, fulfilled through O.T. typology that justified anyone.

Polygamy was first introduced by Cain’s distant grandson Lamech. He was also a double-murderer. God allowed polygamy in the O.T., but monogamy was his design from the beginning.

Paul also made monogamy a requirement for leadership in the church if the leader chose to marry. David and Solomon had harems, as did many of Israel’s later kings. But this was in disobedience to God’s instructions regarding kings.(Deut 17:17)

Are you Jennifer posting under a sockpuppet handle? I’m only trying to help you but you need to have a red-pill moment before you get completely ripped apart by other readers here.

It’s clear you haven’t been listening to any of the men writing here about their experiences, you are simply insistent on impressing your worldview on others. You came in here with a bunch of pop-culture myths about relationships but your shtick has crossed from clueless to malignantly ignorant. (I suggest you start your own blog; if you’re so right, you’ll ramp up to thousands of satisfied readers very quickly.)

Quit peddling this “Nice Guy” nonsense. Women don’t want complete assholes in their relationships but neither are they attracted to simpering suckups voluminously expounding on their “feelings” and jumping to do the dishes.

“No woman in a stable relationship wants to have to play endless games or jump through loopholes just to feel loved. No woman wants to have her affection rejected or to always be the first one who shows it.”

It’s funny you say this because that’s the situation many, MANY husbands find themselves in – one false step from another shouting match with a perpertually-unhappy woman who treats him like a boarder in his own house.

“And show me the man who got dumped because he was loving with his gf or his wife.”

Do I really have to spell this out for you? Millions of men have been the victim of an “I’m not haaapy!” divorce precisely because they bought into the modern lies about relationships, put her on a pedestal, tried to make her the center of his world, tried to calm every boo-boo and squelch her every desire. It certainly does appear that the worst thing a man can do to a woman is give her everything she says she wants.

We men posting here know this empirically; we’ve tried that shtick for years, decades even, and been met with contempt and failure. So we’re not very receptive to women telling us for the thousandth time “we want nice guys who treat us well!” when we see women shredding and dumping those men left and right.

“PS: Badger, a 1-2 year relationship does not count; if anything, it’s just proof he can’t make a relationship work long term.”

What is your obsession with whether or not Roissy knows about relationships? Roissy has probably done more good for more men, and for the women they are with, than any pop psychologist or self-help writer in the past ten years; certainly more than any TV host (Dr Phil, Oprah, etc).

I think his critics take him way too seriously. Learn to read the overstatement and tongue in cheek.

I think cels confuses what she thinks she is attracted to which what she actually responds to. Kay specifically says you should mix alpha aloof with beta, and focus on that which you are short in. There are men who got dumped, although loving their wife a lot, because a strong expression thereof is a demonstration of lower value which women despise due to hypergamous instincts. Whenever, a woman feels to safe in a relationship, it has a list of negative consequences for men.

It’s hilarious that you actually pretend to know better than I do what I am attracted to and what I respond to. I’ve always sought security and stability, so cold/aloof/asshole behavior has never, ever worked on me, and I didn’t ever pay attention to guys that were acting like that; I wasn’t interested in games or in being the chaser.

In my relationship, all of our cards are on the table, I know exactly how he feels about me, just like he does about me. Surprise, surprise, but I actually like that there are no surprises waiting for me, that our relationship is predictable and that I know where I stand (which explains why I went for a Beta, and rejected the Alphas, in manosphere terms). Now you might call this boring and not exciting, but I call it a stable and mature relationship.

All of these tricks and games are emotionally exhausting, no one wants to stress over their relationship and to feel like she could be dumped at any time, no woman wants to feel disposable.

It’s funny you say this because that’s the situation many, MANY husbands find themselves in – one false step from another shouting match with a perpertually-unhappy woman who treats him like a boarder in his own house.

Well then, you should understand when I say that women also get hurt by that behavior.

Do I really have to spell this out for you? Millions of men have been the victim of an “I’m not haaapy!” divorce precisely because they bought into the modern lies about relationships, put her on a pedestal, tried to make her the center of his world, tried to calm every boo-boo and squelch her every desire. It certainly does appear that the worst thing a man can do to a woman is give her everything she says she wants.

I didn’t say to put her on a pedestal, all I said is to be straight, when it’s good or bad, no games..

“we want nice guys who treat us well!” when we see women shredding and dumping those men left and right.

Fine, not all women want nice guys that treat them well, but there are a lot that do.

What is your obsession with whether or not Roissy knows about relationships?

It bothers me when he is quoted as the ultimate authority on relationships.

You are right when you say you and other women want to know their husbands love them deeply. But they only want this from husbands they find attractive. Husbands offering this up, especially in the wrong way, leads to a loss of attraction. It is counterintuitive, especially in our culture. But it is true. If men simply being nice guys were enough, we wouldn’t be discussing this. As others have pointed out, women aren’t aware of what makes them attracted to a man. They only know whether they are attracted to him or not. The advice women give to men is almost always disastrous because women imagine a man they are attracted to (an alpha, or close to one), and then think about how they would like such a man to treat them, and of course they wish the alpha they are attracted to would be nice, shower her with presents, and profess his undying love for her.

Think about all of the men you have had in your friend zone who were attracted to you but you just didn’t feel it back. They all tried the disastrous nice guy method. What they ended up with was frustration. Your animosity towards Roissy is something you should step back and reconsider. Why do you care what someone like him says if it isn’t true? If it isn’t true, nice guy men will go from being a hit with the ladies to the worst dry spell of their lives; sooner or later they will figure it out. In the meantime, the other 99% of nice guy men will be cleaning up. What worries you is that at some level you know it is true. This is what makes Roissy dangerous.

You are right when you say you and other women want to know their husbands love them deeply. But they only want this from husbands they find attractive.

In my little bubble, him being her husband would mean that she’s also attracted to him (or she should).

Think about all of the men you have had in your friend zone who were attracted to you but you just didn’t feel it back. They all tried the disastrous nice guy method. What they ended up with was frustration.

Why would you make such an assumption and why would you assume I rejected the other guys because they were nice? I never rejected one guy because of this; in fact, that’s what I am attracted to.

Your animosity towards Roissy is something you should step back and reconsider. Why do you care what someone like him says if it isn’t true? If it isn’t true, nice guy men will go from being a hit with the ladies to the worst dry spell of their lives; sooner or later they will figure it out. In the meantime, the other 99% of nice guy men will be cleaning up. What worries you is that at some level you know it is true. This is what makes Roissy dangerous.

Like I said, it bothers me when he is quoted as an authority on relationships—the only authority he has is on how to get laid since he hasn’t had more than 2 LTR (if what Badger is saying is correct), and he’s never been married. Considering that he’s almost 40, his life is sad and pathetic, and I fail to understand how any man who’s looking to get married would take him seriously.

Would you have dated and married any of the women that he’s talking about? That should be a clear indication of the caliber of women he’s able to get.

Why would you make such an assumption and why would you assume I rejected the other guys because they were nice? I never rejected one guy because of this; in fact, that’s what I am attracted to.

This makes you very unique, but I’m glad to hear it. You have absolutely nothing to worry about from players, etc. They all mistakenly think being nice isn’t the way to win you over. Never worry again about the stuff that game guys say. They aren’t talking about you, just all of the other women.

In my little bubble, him being her husband would mean that she’s also attracted to him (or she should).

This is your fundamental problem. You close your eyes and imagine what the world should be like. Then you declare it so.

Like I said, it bothers me when he is quoted as an authority on relationships

Not on “relationships”, but on generating attraction. Roissy is critical for many guys to read in terms of learning how to generate attraction among women in the early 21st Century. That’s different from “relationship advice” — it’s about developing the ability to attract, without which there is no relationship anyway.

If I compare the plain tent-dweller Jacob with outdoorsy Esau, who’s the alpha and who’s the beta?

Did Jacob need to learn game to become more Esau-like? Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of beans – is that an example to follow? When his mother Rebekah disguised him as Esau to fool his father Isaac, Isaac remarked that the “the voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau”. Betas can never become true alphas. It’s becomes a clumsy masquerade.

But God preferred Jacob over Esau because he appreciated spiritual things (Rom 9:13). He also had a harem like Esau, so it can’t be argued that harems were the exclusive domain of alphas.

Then there’s his son Joseph, another beta. Joseph was sold by his brothers into slavery, but his beta qualities got him promoted at work. He refused an overt sexual request from Potipher’s wife (not much PUA game either). He was falsely charged with rape and thrown into prison.

His beta qualities got him promoted in prison. After he was released, he was promoted to the number two position in Egypt, whereby he saved entire nations from famine. His more alpha brothers eventually had to bow before him. I guess that makes him a high beta. ;-D

Personally, I think reducing complex human personalities to Greek letter labels is way too oversimplified, but it makes for an interesting discussion.

This is the last time I subscribe to a Dalrock post – so many comments in my mailbox! But buried in the morass was Eric’s comment, which was worth wading through the others for.

And Dalrock, thanks for putting the effort in to give me those links. I’m working my way through them (and laughed at the 5yo daughter one). It is always good to get other folks’ perspective, especially when they’ve thought deeper about the area than you have.

Does this bonding happen the other way around? If a man during his most successful years provides his wife with a lot of romance, excitement, status, and money…and he later suffers a career failure or becomes seriously ill…does the imprinted memory of the good times keep her closely bonded to him?

The ancient Egyptians, from the quote above, evidently thought not.

I’ve seen a couple cases where the wife really stuck by the man when things got rough, but much more common is that–even if she doesn’t leave him–she moves to a level of resentment and anger that makes an already tough situation for him much worse.

‘Show me the man who got dumped by his wife/girlfriend because he was too loving towards her.’

What??????? I can barely think of men who DIDN’T get dumped for that very reason—and the bitch ran off with some scummy male besides.
Most men here are really too grounded in reality to take comments like your seriously. You evidently spend a lot of time watching sitcoms and romantic comedies and think that is somehow related to real life.

These ‘bad boys’ wouldn’t make it two weeks on their own without women supporting them. They subconsciously sense their inferiority and dependence; and over-compensate with thuggishness and false bravado. The women see through this charade, just like they see through ‘game’. Relationships with these thugs allow women to feel superior; and play the victim at the same time. And the women never really have to commit. Any time she feels like leaving, she has plenty of excuses.

This is also the reason why so many of these thugs also turn into ‘stalkers’ once the woman does leave. Again, the thugs sense their helpless dependence on women and turn desperate if they haven’t any other female sources of support.

You’re right again about Roissyism and its similiarity to fad-diets. Most of the pseudopsychology it’s based on has been discredited for years. Most of the Gamecocks would be better served thinking for themselves instead of hanging on every word out of these would-be gurus.

For a man trying to find a girlfriend or wife, or for a man who’s in a relationship, the most important question is: “Does she find me attractive?” Because if the answer is no, none of the rest will matter.

Is he a hard worker? Is he good with kids? Is he smart? Funny? Is he sincere? Does he truly care about her?

None of that will matter in the least to a woman who doesn’t find him attractive, or to a woman who’s lost the tingle (EatPrayLove anyone?).

Sure, most women like their men to have these things (character, work ethic, etc.), but they aren’t attraction triggers in isolation.

“Sure, most women like their men to have these things (character, work ethic, etc.), but they aren’t attraction triggers in isolation.”

This is a very important point. I got into it with Jennifer on a thread at Badger’s about this. Character, loyalty and fidelity are things women desire in men. But women don’t find these things attractive. It’s true many men who have the above traits are also confident and dominant. But that does not mean the man of high character is attractive.

This reminds me of a modification of an old say: You can get more flies with honey than with vinegar, but shit gets far more.

I find it hilarious that Chels still doesn’t get it. I’ve gotten farther acting like a complete asshole than I have being “nice”. Had more fun being an ass too. I’d consider it a win-win-win situation: I get to be a jerk, she gets tingles, and I get action.

“cold and aloof might work at the beginning, but it certainly doesn’t work in LTR or in marriages.”

It works on making women more desperate for affection, not a marriage becoming more healthy. Roissy, helping marriages? He’s full of shit, teaching men that cheating can even be helpful, and almost persuaded one guy to cheat on his wife.

TFH, that’s one of the most pathetic things you’ve ever said. Detin understands perfectly the difference between being needy and being freaking HUMAN in a marriage. Roissy for him? Why not just feed him poison?

Dalrock, Chels never said she’d go for a guy who was ONLY nice and nothing else. Your explanation of matters was perfect: men need to be more than nice, or they’re not even complete as people, and therefore women aren’t attracted. But goodness and kindness (more than just “niceness”) are needed in marriage; you’ve shown this abundantly. You have the perfect balance of strength and love.

I love how others have pointed out how over-simplifying the terms of game can be for men; they are more complex than that.

Nothing, not even loose sex in general, has made me aware of how much feminism has screwed us as much as reading the comments here of men being cruelly treated.

“No man should say what I said in my original comment to just any woman”

Quite obviously; point being from the start.

“Do you have any feel for how many men have bought into what you describe only to get fucked over? Do you?”

Any idea how many people of both sexes I’ve seen f*ck themselves with the constat fear of giving too much? The worst gamers say women need to surrender totally, and men hardly anything. Feminists say the reverse; we’re all terrified, trembling, at the idea of vulnerability. And no wonder: the sexes are baring their teeth at each other instead of embracing each other.

“You came in here with a bunch of pop-culture myths about relationships but your shtick has crossed from clueless to malignantly ignorant”

It’s true, being good won’t win over unworthy women, and many good men have been screwed. But malignantly ignorant is also telling people to keep each other emotionally hungry in order to keep them feeding, to play games and screw with each other’s heads and hearts. People are having trouble because the sexes are now battling for power and the world is fucked up; people choose biological urges over emotional needs, ignoring what women AND men actually need and making sure it’s never fulfilled so they won’t stray, and people flock to blogs telling them how to conquer the world by succumbing to its methods, and how to keep a partner in check by defeating them in a bloody, emotional battle. I can’t go anywhere without seeing someone veer to an unhealthy extreme instead of levelling things out and using trust. Those who do are more rare than I thought. God help us.

Deti has a good point. Roissy’s knowledge is first-rate and very helpful. I would call him the Father of the Manosphere and the Godfather of the AltRight. Alt-righters like Steve Sailer, Scott Locklin, and Richard Spencer channel him every now and then due to his excellent insight. As another note, Roissy himself has given Keoni Galt a tip of the hat in some old post. Keoni’s game is tight and very good for LTRs and marriages and he too is influenced by Roissy.

Terri, I wish you wouldn’t say marriage is only equitable at 20-22. Really? How does that sound to older people, even older young people, who havent married yet? It can be hard enough to keep faith as it is.

The Roissy thing does work in marriages for a while, if the problem was lack of Alpha it really does change the relationship for the better. However I’ve also had several clean up jobs where the husband swung from a betaized nice guy into a total douchebag by being all alpha all the time. During the transition from nice guy to douchebag, he had a good period of balance and she responded well for six months or so.

The Roissy influenced relationship death spiral is where she complains he’s acting like a douchebag because he is in fact acting like a douchebag, and he views that incorrectly as a shit test and responds by bumping back on her becoming an even bigger douchebag. So she complains louder and he responds by becoming more of a douche.

I’ve seen several cases of the bored “I love you but I’m not in love with you” wife transition all the way through to “I hate your guts and I hope you die” because of this approach.

You need both Alpha and Beta Traits in a LTR or marriage. There’s not much way around that. The punishments for lacking either one are severe.

I’m well aware that Roissy and I define Alpha and Beta differently and that’s the key difference in our approach. He’s quite excellent on dating and pick up stuff, but when it comes to marriage he’s advising at times quite poorly.

Sure, unmarried players are more qualified to tell women what they need than women themselves. The assumption I have no “record” of what attracts me or of marriages I’ve observed is funny. Roissy and Athol, hmm, which one has been married longer? Or at all, that is? Which one advises giving women what they need and not just what gets them to open their legs? Their kind of game, like many others, contradicts each other hugely, because people are in fact different. There’s a tragic truth going on right now: people should be focusing on what works and what’s healthy, not what works and causes harm. Being cold to your wife for no reason except that you’re scared of rejection will hurt her; yes it will keep her hungry, and people are lapping this up, but the fact is that few men or women have a good idea of what makes a healthy marriage these days.

“Translation : A woman doesn’t like that a man is teaching other men how to liberate themselves from the shackles of social conservatism (i.e. Christianized feminism) that oppress men”

Funny, I’ve recommended at least three blogs which seek to free men from feminism, but since I hate Roissy (like many, including blog-goddess Susan Walsh), I must want to imprison men. You have no idea how many men there are that are leaders of their families and would despise what these people support.

“you have not yet demonstrated that you know how Game works, what it is, and how Pickup Game vs. Keoni Galt married Game has about a 75% overlap.”

I’ve demonstrated it several times, including the last time you and someone else asked me to. And yes, Keoni’s married game resembles a lot of PUA stuff. I’ve scoured the articles of Vox Day (not all, but plenty), Susan Walsh, Athol Kay more than anyone, Badger, Private Man, several of Keoni Galt’s, Leonidas’s, some of Roosh, and even Roissy, and noted contradictions, truths, half-truths and falsehoods. The basics are both universal and healthy: women want confidence, assertiveness, male social dominance, and intelligence, so men need to learn these and live them for themselves as well as women. Light teasing and non-emotiveness are good and attractive, and men need to keep from being upset when rejected. In marriage, playfulness, sexual assertiveness and refusal to bow to emotional fits are vital, though there are numerous other things that I agree and disagree with in both areas; these are just the foreground, but also the golden rules. Yet it can be damn confusing for anyone; many disagree on what level of input a man should get from a woman, how beneficial it is to be a beta, how moral it is to be an alpha, and how vulnerable a man should be around a woman; there are point by freaking point rules for these things, promised usually to work for every marriage. On that last point, I’ll take Detinn’s position.

And if you do it consistently, the Hard Alpha doesn’t look like douchebaggery: if you say, No, when it comes time to do X, “I DON’T DO THAT”, and don’t even countenance debate, if you’re consistent it just settles in.

But the 20% has to be genuine Alpha, not just put-on. You have to mean it.

I was 50% alpha a year ago; a year into what looks like a marriage in the making, I’ve toned it down a lot, but I have to maintain something or I know exactly where it goes. It turns out your advice for general maintenance and management is good.

“Chels and Jennifer NEED everyone to remain blind for their worldview to prevail”

I’m not talking about a worldview hon, I’m talking about a Christian view, which requires a hell of a lot of sacrifice from both spouses. You think I’m blind to the fact that women have abused men and feminism has fucked stuff up? Or that women want badboys the way men want sluts sometimes? Guess again. We are indeed dying, but playing cat and mouse in a convenant marriage isn’t going to heal things remotely. Both partners will have to give in order to make a union work; it’s the only way.

Gorb, you sound like you have a good balance. It’s strange to me that admitting that people must be vulnerable at some point in a marriage looks to others like I must mean men shouldn’t strong, firm, or not bow to fits.

“Jennifer has really bought the farm with her rapid-fire eruptions and “baaah baahh I’m not lisssteninnnnngg!” replies”

I hear things loud and clear, Badger, but it’s hilarious how I’m accused of being a feminist when I say that openness in marriage is better than games or that I hate Roissy; apparently men who hate marriage have a problem hearing me properly. Boohoohooo, I’m a big cougar meanie! No one’s forcing you to read my comments.

LOL Naw, her post about his post “dread” made it clear her skin was crawling. I don’t blame men for everything at all; I saw the posts here clearly Badger, and honestly grieved for those who had been cruelly treated by rotten women. But it’s terribly frusterating to see unmarried men tell other men to fear what they give women, to arrange trenches in marriage; I told Chels that both sexes were terrified of giving in to partners in LTRs, and she got resistance from both the men here and me when she advised us not to be. I want something better than that for both sexes, and it requires both sexes to cooperate. And yes, when many swoop in to speak to me, I will answer the many replies, which means many replies of my own. I am not Chels; we disagree about many things and see commonly on others.

But Game got me the girl. Without hard game, she’d have never looked at me. She’s a solid, rock-hard 8.5 on a 1-10. At 27, she’s more attractive than almost any woman I’ve ever been with. She could seriously be on TV and be the hot chick on TV.

I’m a 6.5. Normally, she’d never have looked at a guy like me. Okay, my job is interesting and I can be charming as all get out, but she was surrounded by rich guys with GQ looks. Stealing her away took game – nuclear game – and it worked.

But–

*Keeping* her has proven… challenging. Filled with surprises. And the Beta had to come out; I knew I couldn’t play asshole for that long, and it wouldn’t enthrall for more than 6 months. It’s just not in me, anyway.

So I toned it down slowly, and now I get to help steer her life, which happens to be alongside my life. But this still takes game.

But there’s no doubt: Roissy is bang on as to what women are attracted to.

But experience tells me they’re complicated creatures: They’re attracted to multiple things. You get them tingling, and committed; and then you buy their security alarms off by being reliable, strong, useful and dependable (Beta). With the hint of “do it my way and it’s better.”

This has been hard for me, because I generally gave up or left after 3-6 months. Transitioning took me a hard learning curve.

But unfortunately for the blue pill types, my life experience at least says: lose the Alpha and lose the girl.

“LOL Naw, her post about his post “dread” made it clear her skin was crawling.”

You do know Susan and I are blog compatriots, right? And I’m a daily reader of her site and vice versa and have been for going on a year? So I think I have a bit of authority, certainly more than you, speaking about her opinions of various game practitioners. Just because she disagrees with something he wrote doesn’t discount the clear admiration she has for his body of work.

TFH, if you think i come here to get a sexual high, you are really delusioned. I come here because I like Dalrock’s articles. I stay in stupid debates like this because I have a big problem with letting things go, and have an unholy urge to verbally impale people who needle me; picture a huge spike protruding from your throat. If you think I’m drawn sexually to you, then THAT’S my idea of sexual play; I’m one big mean bitch you see, a baaaaaad girl, and I don’t even have the reverse-gender Roissy blog telling women how to keep men and use them at the same time. I’m accused of not listening, yet you’ve blatantly ignored some of my points and others that disagree with you. But I’ve got a secret for you: if people don’t keep addressing me, I won’t keep addressing them. I’d love it if guys like you ignored me so i wouldn’t feel compelled to set you straight. If you post two insulting comments to me, expect plenty back. Now that I’v gotten that off my chest..

Granted, in this case I started it: I called your words pathetic and you were justified in responding sharply. But as scathing as my post was, I said it in pure sadness; I get bad headaches and depression when I see how women have taught men to behave, and likewise when I see men encouraged to sink to that level and try to control women. I want something better than feminism and PUA stuff, and I know it’s possible from everyone I know personally and some that I don’t. It’s hard to fight for this, with men and women snarling at each other like demons, but it’s possible. I intend to continue fighting, and not here; it’s useless and people talk past each other. I hope the better bloggers continue to give good advice and teach men how to be men, good and real men without fear or guilt. I also want women to remember how blessed we were made to be, and that men do not go around looking for a way to hurt them. Part of me wants the world to pick itself up, the other part wants it to end quickly.

Incidentally, I’m watching a Stephen King story called, “The End of the Whole Mess”. A young, brilliant man is pained by the misery of the cruel world, and wants to end it. But he messes things up, terribly, and everything’s ruined. We have to be very careful how we try to repair things.

“You do know Susan and I are blog compatriots, right? And I’m a daily reader of her site and vice versa and have been for going on a year?”

Yes, I’m aware of that. I also spoke to her about his work, and she hates and speaks against women going for the type that he describes. She’s described him to me as a brilliant guy of amazing insight, but she knows his abuse of it too. For me, I don’t care how brilliant someone is if they give mostly harmful advice; Roissy gave some great tips about keeping spark in marriage and I noted some of his joking comments, but he’s also spoken of cheating lightly and advises sometimes awful mind games to keep women emotionally hungry.

“But there’s no doubt: Roissy is bang on as to what women are attracted to”

Yes, Roissy knows the healthy and the unhealthy: it’s good for women to be attracted to strong men. This is emotionally healthy. It’s bad when they’re attracted to bad boys, a biological rule going against them. The bad thing is, Roissy advises men use plenty of the bad. The underlying rule of negative game is: always keep her hungry. Never let her be totally secure, never let her think you need her in anyway.

“But experience tells me they’re complicated creatures: They’re attracted to multiple things. You get them tingling, and committed; and then you buy their security alarms off by being reliable, strong, useful and dependable (Beta). With the hint of “do it my way and it’s better.””

Yes, we’re complicated. And we’re even different from each other; I’ve gone for alphas and betas, but no assholes and no guys with weak frames. The in-between needed is to be your own man, loving her deeply but not becoming LIKE her in emotions. If she’s needy and manipulative, you’ll really need to be stronger than she is.

I have criticized Christian women, before. One woman, Darla Shine, claims to hate feminism, then says men are simple, only want three things, and will become miserable bastards if you don’t give them to them. I’ve also spoken against women who decry feminism, but expect men to be solely responsible for the spiritual condition of everyone in the family.

I’ve read them all by Hestia, she’s awesome. I’ve read Jones’s elsewhere and some of Grerp; I’m rarely returning to the Spearhead, since it makes me angry at many of the male authors and that’s the last thing I need.

I think you have at bottom good intentions, TFH, even if we’ve sharply disagreed. I hope you find a good woman (if you want to), and I really pray for the men who have been hurt here; hating the idea of a man ruling a woman doesn’t mean I want the reverse. But I do need to let things go; I dislike a lot of what Badger said to me in the past, but he’s right that I comment too much. So, I’m leaving this discussion; it’s late here and I have a lot to do tomorrow, and as sad as it is, I get anxious about things to the point that I worry about them when I’m away, and I don’t want to be preoccupied tomorrow with thoughts of this comment area (to me it can become more than an online discussion, and instead a big moral issue). Hope you guys have a good weekend.

“She is just as bad as Feministing, at the end of the day. Men are not human beings with human rights, and exist only to be useful to women, in the Laura Wood view.”

I’ve read her extensively, and I cannot agree with you here. The difference between her and you is that she seems to think that rights and responsibilities occur on the same plane. You and others like you assume that responsibilities only come when rights are honored. Mrs. Wood’s view stems from the assumption that while man is an individual, he is not separated from the society he exists in. Dalrock’s main objection to her seems to stem from the assumption that modern society does not conform to that ideal, lovely though it may be, and that it would be suicide to do so.

Both are talking past each other. I happen to agree with them both. Men ought not to be coerced into marriage. But they must see that they have an obligation to the future, and therefore must marry, or be convinced to marry. Its the age-old tension between what men ought to have (“freedom”) and what men ought to be (“in the image and likeness of God”). The gamble of freedom is that men can choose wrong. And yes, not all choices are equally good. (This is a notion lost on most Westerners, who have made a cult of choice. Coincidentally, the divorce Dalrock hates so much attains much of its fuel from that cult.)

She is far better the harpies of Feministing. Your guns are trained at the wrong foe. Denigrate traditionalists if you want. But that would be a so-called “circular firing squad”.

TFH, if you think i come here to get a sexual high, you are really delusioned. I come here because I like Dalrock’s articles. I stay in stupid debates like this because I have a big problem with letting things go, and have an unholy urge to verbally impale people who needle me; picture a huge spike protruding from your throat. If you think I’m drawn sexually to you, then THAT’S my idea of sexual play; I’m one big mean bitch you see, a baaaaaad girl, and I don’t even have the reverse-gender Roissy blog telling women how to keep men and use them at the same time. I’m accused of not listening, yet you’ve blatantly ignored some of my points and others that disagree with you. But I’ve got a secret for you: if people don’t keep addressing me, I won’t keep addressing them. I’d love it if guys like you ignored me so i wouldn’t feel compelled to set you straight. If you post two insulting comments to me, expect plenty back. Now that I’v gotten that off my chest..

Seriously, I just find it mind blowing when women, who obviously have zero experience attracting women or maintaining attraction in relationships with women, will nevertheless try to school men who are actually successful with women about how they’re supposedly doing it all wrong. Or, even worse, telling men who are unsuccessful with women that they need to just keep on doing the “be nice, be yourself” thing that’s causing them to fail in the first place.

The discrepancy between what women say they want from men, and how they actually respond to men who give it to them, never ceases to amaze me.

Brendan, I never told men attracting women by being masculine to stop doing what they’re doing, which I made very clear; the only game I spoke against of here, in fact, was being cold and distant in marriage and/or adapting Roissy’s uglier methods. You’ve projected the feminist bullshit onto my position, and made me increasingly glad I avoid complimentarianism with every fiber of my being. Have a nice day.

Holy shit…. And she called me messed up for my dog-fucking-a-football joke. I cringed a little when I read this piece of gold: “picture a huge spike protruding from your throat. If you think I’m drawn sexually to you, then THAT’S my idea of sexual play”

However, TFH has a point. The Manosphere is where you’re bound to find loads of men who are willing to tell it like it is which = tingles.

Brendan, you really haven’t looked at egalism, have you? “Woman: God’s Plan” and Betty Fruidan are good examples for telling the difference between feminism and egal-ism.

“Lol, wut? I’m thinking Jack meant a load of splooge to the face, but now I’m not sure. Jack, were you talking about a female sexual experience?”

Google listed the term as either a money-making frame in a film, or the point in a porn when a man ejaculates. And since you claimed Jennifer meant it sexually, when she was clearly using that description to mean that she did NOT see things sexually, I wondered if Jack did too.

Aristotle once said that wherever Woman becomes Man equal, she becomes his superior. I’ll listen to a dead Greek man who actually did things than a bunch of silly frauen who don’t even know what they want.

“Far from being a misogynist, Xenophon’s Socrates tells men to treat their wives with respect, talk with them, encourage their intellectual and moral development. Wives should be treated as partners and not as children or slaves. “A wife who is a good partner in the home contributes just as much as her husband to its wellbeing; because the revenues for the most part are produced by the husband’s efforts, but the expenditures are controlled mostly by the wife’s management. If both perform their duties well, the estate is increased; if they perform badly, it is diminished”

“Silly jackasses of old who don’t know what they want.”

That’s rich, calling Aristotle a jackass. I’m pretty sure he knew what he wanted; he’s a man after all.

Sure I have, Gwen. It isn’t Christian. Paul is explicitly complementarian. “Egalitarianism” in the eyes of God in terms of human worth, salvation and so on for certain. But in terms of marital roles, Paul was explicitly complementarian, unless one believes that the relationship between the Church (believers) and Christ is also egalitarian — which wouldn’t exactly be Christian.

I just find it mind blowing when women, who obviously have zero experience attracting women or maintaining attraction in relationships with women, will nevertheless try to school men who are actually successful with women about how they’re supposedly doing it all wrong.

Yes, this. I actually overheard a conversation like this recently – one happily married man v. a half-dozen wanna-be’s counseling some poor guy – right, don’t listen to the man who actually has a wife, listen to the women who have never married or are divorced – brilliant strategy.

““Egalitarianism” in the eyes of God in terms of human worth, salvation and so on for certain. But in terms of marital roles, Paul was explicitly complementarian, unless one believes that the relationship between the Church (believers) and Christ is also egalitarian — which wouldn’t exactly be Christian.”

That’s a very good point. Man’s equality begins and ends with his dignity as a human being and a child of God. To force equality upon something as mysterious and asymmetrical as human life (and love) will only cause misery.

Egalitarianism may be the biggest and most destructive lie of the 20th century. How much have we wasted trying to render us all one and the same?

I don’t think it was so much a ‘pat on the head’ as much as Jennifer’s seeing—what this whole thread ought to make evident to anyone—that Roissyism, and ‘Game’ in general, is a quagmire to try and make logical sense of; and worse still trying to put it into actual practice.

Our culture is disasterous for relationships generally because it pits the genders against one another as competitors. Women are taught to be superior to men; to despise us as ‘pigs’; that they own sex and reproduction; that they ‘have all the power in relationships’ &c. All ‘Game’ really does is accept these neo-feminist premises as facts of nature and tells men to accomodate themselves to it by adopting the same techniques and attitudes. Worse still, it teaches men to delude themselves into thinking women’s attitudes will change and they become desireable by acting like so-called ‘Alphas’. It doesn’t work. It can’t work. And there isn’t even any reason why anyone should desire it to, even if it did.

The way to fix gender relations is to educate people as to what made them work before: that the relationships are a mutual commitment requiring the relative strengths of both genders and based on mutual support, love, empathy, and respect of both parties. It will never change if it continues to be carried out like warfare or business competition, where one party is constantly trying to out-manouvre an enemy.

TFH:
The government is one of the most massive obstacles to gender relations; in fact, it probably intentionally foments discord between the genders. It’s always in the interests of power-cliques (which most governments are) to exacerbate as much division and dissension and distraction among the people as possible.

What I meant by ‘education’ here was in a social, not political, context.

“That many social conservatives never, ever grasp the importance of legal incentives is why they continue to remain clueless.”

Not exactly. Socons understand the importance of legal incentives, but not as applied to gender relationships. Socons pedestalize women and thus were instrumental and complicit in my opinion in permitting passage and implementation of much feminist legislation. It appears to me socons believe women today to be the “weaker sex” and thus in need of protective legislation. That, I think, is the root of the problem.

The socons want gov’t involved in gender relations because they favor traditional, religious-based social engineering—the same as most feminists vie for left-wing social engineering. Both sides want to use the power of the state to shape society and abrogate human freedoms to the extent that they interfere with their grand design.

I will add consumerism as a driving force of gender wars single women can get their “emotional purchases” run amok they have no men that can sit with them and reason between what they want and need, they have no children to feed and care, plus the constant competition for the attention to alpha males so me me me can and will just purchase anything that is sold using “feeling good” and “the man of your dream will see you like this if you buy lipstick X” men to a lesser degree are caught in porn (hasn’t the porn industry like skyrocketed in the last 40 years too?) which is probably the main business profiting from single men, I doubt video games and sports profit enough at least not right now, if things gets worse probably they will. The truth is that businesses make a good money out of gender discord and not from their synergy, YMMV.

“The truth is that businesses make a good money out of gender discord and not from their synergy, YMMV.”

Quite right. I’ve hammered a point in the manosphere for a long time now: that free-market conservatives and the business class are every bit as responsible for the societal ravages of feminism reforms—and concomitant misandry—as the feminist left.

dragnet: “I’ve hammered a point in the manosphere for a long time now: that free-market conservatives and the business class are every bit as responsible for the societal ravages of feminism reforms—and concomitant misandry—as the feminist left.”

This is true, but only superficially. You are correct that commerce has contributed to misandry, but it’s not that simple. On the contrary, it is not the responsibility of businesses to, while in the course of doing business, effect social change.

The whole reason a free-market economy is such a powerful system is because businesses will adapt and change to succeed in their current environment — regardless of whether society is strong or is suffering from horrendous social policies.

Yes, it would be great if every businessman collectively refused to practice affirmative action, but please bear in mind the reason they don’t. Leftist’s legal and cultural efforts have been specifically designed to make equality “violations” more painful to the company than the loss from hiring a less qualified woman/minority/disabled person/etc. Therefore, companies do better if they follow the PC objectives. They aren’t trying to change the world, but to make the best of how it currently exists.

Rather than cursing businesses for doing what they do best, the solution is to change the cultural and legal environment they are attempting to thrive in. Right now, the biggest consumer demographic (the one who only makes 77% of what men make in the raw aggregate [admitted by feminists], yet somehow manage to make 80% of purchases [also foolishly admitted by feminists]) enjoys misandry a great deal. Businesses have no choice but to adapt to this paradigm, since that is what it takes to survive quarter to quarter.

Somehow, by some change, misandrist women need to be stripped of their enormous purchasing power. This is projected to happen in short order as feminism’s financial solvency dissipates in sovereign credit crises.

“Somehow, by some change, misandrist women need to be stripped of their enormous purchasing power. This is projected to happen in short order as feminism’s financial solvency dissipates in sovereign credit crises.”

This has to happen at the micro level – men just simply have to make it a condition of their “commitment” that the couple live a stable, low-flash lifestyle and quit giving their wives access to the disposable income. I certainly will be.

Badger: “This has to happen at the micro level – men just simply have to make it a condition of their “commitment” that the couple live a stable, low-flash lifestyle and quit giving their wives access to the disposable income. I certainly will be.”

I don’t think nearly enough men will ever risk receiving shaming language for this micro-level situation to have the desired effect. Obviously, any man who does take this stance will have a better life for it, as will his wife, so this is great for any man to practice.

Misandry will not end because of a intentional initiatives to correct it. Men seem to be a-okay with silently suffering under it, and women benefit in the short-term. It will fail in due time because, unlike many other brands of injustice or bad social policy, civilization backslides.

Thirty years of debt growing faster than the US’ real productive output proves that the feminist social order is too inefficient to maintain the level of civilization we expect.

“When a woman divorces frivolously and lives in poverty in her old age (as alimony ends when the ex-husband dies), that is the free market. Had the woman not divorced, she would have a lot more money as a widow, than as a divorced woman.”

@TFH,

Yep. Dalrock has touched on this. Where I live I see this constantly. And where I live you would not expect it as you have lots of successful dual income families or solid single income households. You also see lots of unhappy ladies egging each other on.

So two scenarios play out. The first is where some frivolous wife divorced a man who managed to save money despite her. She walks away with a solid six figure settlement and starts blowing it like crazy. The second is where neither the husband or the wife were savers. They lived for the flash. So she ditches him only to find herself trying to make it work on one income plus the child support. Still a big step down. In both scenarios the ladies try and keep up appearances and are well on their way to being broke.

I see this in families I know and also in the ladies I get to sort through now that I am back in the dating marketplace. Worry about money now? Why? I have it. I spend it. I know there are women out their who are savers, but I have to tell you I have yet to meet one in the two years I have been back out there.

Maybe I’m just being too harsh. Maybe they can’t help it. Maybe they shouldn’t be asked to cut back on their lifestyle. Or maybe they are just following the lead of their patron saint. The woman who epitomized self indulgence over 70 years ago in a very famous movie. Yes, the one and only Scarlett O’Hara who ended the movie Gone With the Wind by saying,

” I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.”

So bow your head and say a prayer for all the Scarletts you know and who you might have the misfortune of meeting in the future. (props to Solomon II). They are gonna need it.

@sedulous:
“Because of that current crisis, Paul was also instructing married people not to get divorced, along with telling singles not to get married. If Paul’s advice only applied to a particular crisis affecting only the Corinthians, what happens when the danger passes and better conditions prevail? Can singles then get married and married couples get divorced?
That’s why I tend to go with the other interpretation of “present distress”, referring to the entire church dispensation with the trials and tribulations that all Christians endure in varying degrees (Roman 8:18). It’s best to stay single, but if you can’t deal with that, get married. If married, stay married. Most people will get married. But there are those who remain single for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, whether in good times or bad.”

Corinthians is first and foremost inspired correspondence from Paul to the Corinthians and as such addresses issues of relevance directly to them in their time and place. Aside from that fact, Paul doesn’t forbid the Corinthians from marrying and divorcing, even during their “crisis,” he just advises against it. For instance, ICor7:10-11 says that a believing woman should not leave her believing husband, but if she does, she should stay unmarried or else reconcile with him. Men are merely instructed not to put away a believing wife. In the case of “mixed” couples where the unbelieving male departs, the female is free to remarry (7:15). Again, merely advice, even during the “crisis.” Further, in Timothy, Paul straight up pushes marriage, especially for ovulating widows, while opposing those who forbid marriage.

@sedulous:
“Besides, I could apply the “local crisis” interpretation to the current state of the Anglosphere and argue that because of gender feminism and divorce/Family Court laws, men are in serious danger, so Paul’s counsel of avoiding marriage is the best path to deal with it.”

I can’t find “Paul’s Letter to the Anglosphere” in my Bible, so I think you’ll have a pretty hard sell on that one. That’s just bad hermeneutics. Kind of like “prooftexting gone wild.”

@ sedulous:
“There were also murderers, drunkards, prostitutes and blasphemers in the Faith Hall Of Fame.
It’s only the blood of calvary, fulfilled through O.T. typology that justified anyone.”

Murder, drunkeness, prostitution (at least the religious type and possibly the cash type, as well), and blasphemy are all called sin by the Bible. Contrarily, the Bible spills much ink explaining God’s approved rules for the practice of polygyny. Furthermore, God actually represents Himself as a polygamist with Judah and Israel as His wives.

@sedulous:
“Polygamy was first introduced by Cain’s distant grandson Lamech. He was also a double-murderer. God allowed polygamy in the O.T., but monogamy was his design from the beginning.”

The Bible doesn’t say Lamech introduced polygyny, so you’re making an assumption in the absence of established fact. In fact, the Bible says nothing of any of the wives, neither numbers or names, of all the many generations between Adam and Lamech. All or none of these men may have had multiple wives. There is no more reason to imagine the did not than there is to imagine they did.

You’re making another assumption on the idea of Lamech being a murderer. The story indicates that Lamech killed only one man, in self-defense, after the man attacked and wounded Lamech. Alternatively, the man wounded Lamech by accident and the Lamech reacted. Today, we would call that manslaughter.

As for monogamy being “allowed” by God, it was flat out endorsed by God. God, through the prophet Nathan, told David that He was the one who gave David his wives and other possessions and would have provided more had David asked. As far as God’s “design from the beginning” goes, I agree that your speculation on this aspect is quite probably correct, but no aspect of daily life survived the fall. The wearing of clothing and the eating of bread weren’t part of God’s design from the beginning, either, but nobody wants to prohibit either practice.

@sedulous:
“Paul also made monogamy a requirement for leadership in the church if the leader chose to marry. David and Solomon had harems, as did many of Israel’s later kings. But this was in disobedience to God’s instructions regarding kings.(Deut 17:17)”

Paul’s statement is that the elder and deacon should be a “one woman man.” Whether the woman is a wife, a concubine, or a slave girl is not specified, but the leaders are supposed to have a woman and only one woman at that. The membership is free to do as they wish. Knowing the propensity of pastors to collect the women of the membership, from the popes to Henry Ward Beecher and probably half of the so-called “clergy” over the millenia, it seems obvious why this requirement was put in place. Christianity has always been more appealing to women than to men (remember that 5:3 ratio) and any “Christian” leader of almost average intelligence can easily spin it into “chick crack.” Women already mooning and idealizing their “pastor” vs. their worldly husbands are easy prey. Grandier’s infamous ploy of a celestial self-wedding yielding earthly delights has been pulled many times by Protestant’s as well as Catholics, both before and after Grandier.

Deuteronomy 17:14-17 is actually a prophecy of the events of I Samuel 8, when the people demanded a king. The injunction foreshadows Solomon (apparently David, for all his women, did not exceed the unspecified number that tops the “many” limit) being turned away from God by his many wives. As with the limits on the Church elders and deacons, the marriage limits for the kings of Israel did not apply to the rank and file.

God never speaks against polygyny in the scriptures in any way. He endorses it through His rules about its regulation and His self-portrayal as a polygynist. Beyond that, we see it endorsed in women themselves, who crave the few elite males. Notice in Ezekiel 23 how God portrays the type of “men” (the gods of the countries around Israel) His “wives” (Israel and Judah) lust after: young, rich, powerful, well dressed, well hung, heavily ejaculating tough guys who drive hot chariots and ride powerful bikes, er, horses. God understands female attraction.

@Sedulous says:
“You’re both right on those respective points. Here’s my take.
If I compare the plain tent-dweller Jacob with outdoorsy Esau, who’s the alpha and who’s the beta?”

Which one do women want to copulate with? In the context of this particular use of Alpha and Beta, it is women, and only women, who decide into which category a man falls. The Bible doesn’t tell us which one had the highest SMV, but I’d say it was pretty high for both of them due to their family wealth. PUA game is completely unnecessary when women are bought with a bride price and you’ve got the bread to buy a virgin. Where the Bible demonstrates directly who is an alpha is when it reveals divorced, widowed, and married women chasing after a man, who is pretty much an “alpha” in this discussion. We don’t have enough info to make a judgement on Jacob or Esau.

@Sedulous says:
” He also had a harem like Esau, so it can’t be argued that harems were the exclusive domain of alphas.”

Anyone who could afford the upkeep could have a harem in those days. Just like I can buy several cars today.

@Sedulous says:
“Then there’s his son Joseph, another beta. ”

I disagree. Roissy would call him a beta, because he turned down poon, but I say he’s alpha by the simple indicator that the woman wanted him. Notice also the woman’s reaction. They don’t like getting turned down for godly reasons when they spread ’em for you on a silver platter. 3500 years later and some things never change.

@Sedulous says:
“Personally, I think reducing complex human personalities to Greek letter labels is way too oversimplified, but it makes for an interesting discussion.”

Forget the “man among men” definition of alpha and ask who is the guy who all the women want to bang when they are ovulating?

As for LTR game, it was no more necessary in ancient Israel or the first century Greco-Roman world than PUA game was. If your wife didn’t want sex, no problem, one of the others probably would. If not, just marry another or use one of your concubines or slave girls (completely lawful back then). And this is why we have the instructions about remembering the first bride (the one from age 13). Even if she doesn’t want to put out for us anymore 4-7 years after marriage (not likely at age 20 – which brings up another problem of waiting to age 30 to marry), we are to cherish her and not put her away even though the other wives might be more into it.

“Paul’s statement is that the elder and deacon should be a “one woman man.” Whether the woman is a wife, a concubine, or a slave girl is not specified…”,

Paul said “the husband of one wife” so he’s referring to monogamous marriage.

“I can’t find “Paul’s Letter to the Anglosphere” in my Bible, so I think you’ll have a pretty hard sell on that one.”

Likewise, I can’t find “Paul’s Letter to Sedulous” either, so should I ignore Corinthians and the NT altogether? Is that the correct hermeneutics?

Unless you believe the NT is only a collection of historical documents written to those first century churches and individuals, these instructions apply to all Christians throughout history. Otherwise, why bother studying the NT?

My remark was directed to those who believe Paul’s counsel to Corinth was only referring to some specific “distress” affecting only the Corinthians. I merely applied the same principle to men in the Anglosphere. Paul’s advice that single men should remain so, and married men should avoid divorce because the current misandry in our Anglo culture makes marriage and divorce a perilous choice for men. When this current “distress” ends or changes into something better, then men can adjust accordingly, like the Corinthians.

And I’m not forbidding anyone to marry either. I don’t think anyone in the manosphere is doing that.

But I prefer the more universal interpretation as I previously stated.

“Aside from that fact, Paul doesn’t forbid the Corinthians from marrying and divorcing, even during their “crisis,” he just advises against it. For instance, ICor7:10-11 says that a believing woman should not leave her believing husband, but if she does, she should stay unmarried or else reconcile with him. Men are merely instructed not to put away a believing wife.”

Paul said this was a commandment from the Lord, in agreement with Matt 19:3-9, Mark 10:12 and Luke 16:18.

In the case of “mixed” couples where the unbelieving male departs, the female is free to remarry (7:15). Again, merely advice, even during the “crisis.””

Paul said this was him, not the Lord. Does that mean his teaching is uninspired? Or that Paul covered a situation that wasn’t specifically addressed by Christ during his earthly ministry although it is still inspired scripture? I view it as the latter.

The departing unbeliever could be the man or woman. Paul used the masculine “him” to teach the point in vs. 15, but it can apply to a departing female as well since he referred to both earlier.

“I agree that your speculation on this aspect is quite probably correct, but no aspect of daily life survived the fall. The wearing of clothing and the eating of bread weren’t part of God’s design from the beginning, either, but nobody wants to prohibit either practice.”

In Matt 19, Jesus went all the way back to “the beginning” to teach against divorce and remarriage to counter the Pharisees use of the mosaic law to justify it. Everything in the discussion refers to monogamous marriage – “…and they twain shall be one flesh.” Twain is two.

“The Bible doesn’t say Lamech introduced polygyny, so you’re making an assumption in the absence of established fact.”

Lamech is the first man recorded in scripture to “take unto him two wives”, this is an established fact. Was I incorrect to say he introduced it because of this fact?
OK, let’s just say he’s the first man recorded doing so.

@sedulous
“Paul said “the husband of one wife” so he’s referring to monogamous marriage.”

I’m referring to the old Greek used by Paul, where there is no actual word for “wife” or “husband.” The translation to English makes the assumption of “wife and husband,” which is a reasonable translation, but the pure reading is “man of one woman”. Clearly, this means the elder can only be involved in a sexual relationship with one woman, regardless of her exact legal status, whether full wife, concubine, etc).

@sedulous
“Likewise, I can’t find “Paul’s Letter to Sedulous” either, so should I ignore Corinthians and the NT altogether? Is that the correct hermeneutics? Unless you believe the NT is only a collection of historical documents written to those first century churches and individuals, these instructions apply to all Christians throughout history. Otherwise, why bother studying the NT?”

That’s the whole point of hermeneutics, figuring out what applies and what doesn’t. I think you’ll have a very hard time following the commands of Colossians 4:15.

@sedulous:
“My remark was directed to those who believe Paul’s counsel to Corinth was only referring to some specific “distress” affecting only the Corinthians. I merely applied the same principle to men in the Anglosphere. Paul’s advice that single men should remain so, and married men should avoid divorce because the current misandry in our Anglo culture makes marriage and divorce a perilous choice for men. When this current “distress” ends or changes into something better, then men can adjust accordingly, like the Corinthians.”

I agree with that, but Paul makes it clear that even in the “crisis” his advice is only advice and the Corinthians are free to make their own personal decisions on the issue, with the exception of the Lord’s command that a believing woman leaving a believing husband cannot marry another. Remember, Chapter 7 is a direct reply to the questions about marriage posed by the Corinthians in their letter (lost) to Paul.

@sedulous
“Paul said this was a commandment from the Lord, in agreement with Matt 19:3-9, Mark 10:12 and Luke 16:18.”

Somewhat. Christ, in Matt 19, was talking about men not putting away their wives without a valid reason, which is sexual misconduct (porneia). This is precisely the kind of wicked behavior addressed by the two verses referencing not breaking faith with and rejoicing in “the bride of thy youth.” On the other hand, Paul’s instruction here, given from the Lord’s command, is mostly about the wife leaving the marriage. Christ does cover this exact ground in Matt 10, when he brings up the Roman practice of allowing certain women (those not in an “in manu” marriage) to divorce their husbands. There was no possibility of an Israelite woman divorcing her husband under the Law of Moses, but the practice must have infiltrated Jewish life with the arrival of the Romans or Jesus would not have brought it up.

@sedulous
“Paul said this was him, not the Lord. Does that mean his teaching is uninspired? Or that Paul covered a situation that wasn’t specifically addressed by Christ during his earthly ministry although it is still inspired scripture? I view it as the latter.”

I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

@sedulous
“The departing unbeliever could be the man or woman. Paul used the masculine “him” to teach the point in vs. 15, but it can apply to a departing female as well since he referred to both earlier.”

That is true of verse 15, as the second half of the verse proves he is using “he” to include both sexes.

@sedulous
“In Matt 19, Jesus went all the way back to “the beginning” to teach against divorce and remarriage to counter the Pharisees use of the mosaic law to justify it. Everything in the discussion refers to monogamous marriage – “…and they twain shall be one flesh.” Twain is two.”

This is a reach. Monogamy, which is the state of having one legal spouse, is never mentioned in this passage. “One Flesh” is a clear reference to fleshly togetherness. Neither Jesus, Moses, nor Paul reference “one spirit” or spiritual union between a man and a woman, the use of flesh proves it is indisputably a fleshly union, i.e. copulation, being discussed. Paul even uses “one flesh” in connection with prohibiting the Corinthians from copulating with the holy prostitutes from the Temple of Aphrodite, a big tourist draw there. Jesus is saying the household established by marriage, which includes copulation, should not be broken up, absent adultery. What is adultery in the Bible? A married woman copulating with a man not her husband. It is a sin by the wife and her paramour against the husband (Lev. 20:10). Jesus expands this to include a wife divorced and replaced in the absence of porneia on her part (Matt 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), but again this does not preclude polygyny, because unjust divorce is what is proscribed, not adding a woman. A man may enter into numerous marriages simultaneously. Note that Christ does not repudiate levirate marriage, which was often polygynous, despite being given a golden opportunity to do so.

@sedulous
“Lamech is the first man recorded in scripture to “take unto him two wives”, this is an established fact. Was I incorrect to say he introduced it because of this fact?
OK, let’s just say he’s the first man recorded doing so.”

Sorry, I’m just not buying it—free-market capitalists are every bit as responsible for the dysfunction in today’s SMP as the traditional conservatives and man-hating feminists.

Whether you read an article on American manufacturing, it mentions that those jobs are now “gone” and that working class men are in dire straits. This is true, of course—but it pays to examine a bit more closely what actually happened. Sure, many of those jobs were eliminated by technology. But for many of those jobs, what really happened was that the business class and laissez-faire capitalists got together and shipped the manufacturing jobs overseas where the men would work for cheaper. Foreign working class men were economically empowered at the expense of the American working class. These jobs didn’t “disappear” so much as working class American men were sold out for profit. This is just one example of the perfidy of the business class.

The feminists and socons are guilty of much—but they aren’t at all responsible for this particular betrayal.

Hey Greenlander, if you’re not serious about your current girlfriend, why are you wasting her time? Does she know that you will never marry her? At least be honest with her and tell her your intentions.

Greenlander doesn’t owe anyone anything. He may change his mind a hundred times before tomorrow morning and it is still his choice and his choice alone. As the gatekeeper to a relationship, greenlander is the sole arbiter of his intentions and owes an explanation to no one.

So according to you guys, it’s completely ok leading on a woman who is supposedly “marriage material”? This poor woman is probably thinking that they’re going to get married, but when greenlander can’t get out fast enough. As well, the divorce rate is 1/2 in the US, so he still has a 50% chance of it working out, and it probably will since even he says that she’s a good woman.

Understood if you don’t want to take that risk, but at least don’t lead her on, tell her your intentions and then she can decide for herself if she still wants a relationship with you. You’re basically in a long term pump and dump.

And NO, it is not only his time and his choice, it’s also her time and her choice, and he’s lying to her to keep having a relationship with her.

As well, I never said to marry her, I said that he should cut her loose if he won’t ever marry her, and stop deluding and lying to her.

Chels, you’ve made the fundamental mistake the majority of “Nice Guys” make, call it you being a “Nice Girl”.

You are operating under an outdated notion that the sexes owe anything to each other anymore. Greenlander makes his feelings on the relationship clear every time he drains his sperm count to zero and goes home, every time he says he is too busy, that she is unable or unwilling to accept these signals is either wishful thinking on her part or just being bad at reading signals. She is free to leave at any time, if she doesn’t it is only her “wasting” her own time, which I’m sure she would debate you on whether it is a waste.

In conclusion you make a lot of assumptions about him lying, the only thing lying to his girl appears to be inside her own brain, spinning happily.

Hey Greenlander, if you’re not serious about your current girlfriend, why are you wasting her time? Does she know that you will never marry her? At least be honest with her and tell her your intentions.

You’re twisting my words. I’m considering marrying her, and may do so if I don’t expatriate. Or maybe I’ll expatriate to a country that has marriage 1.0 and ask her to come with me.

At what point do you think it is unethical to date a girl? If the likelihood that I’ll give a marriage proposal to a particular woman is 25%, is it unethical for me to date her? What about 50%? If I’m 99% sure that I’ll ask this girl to marry me, is it unethical because I’m not 100% sure?

She has her choice, too. She’s an attractive woman: if she thinks I’m not worth her time, she’s free to dump me and chase some other guy. In my more beta days I was led on by plenty of women who just wanted attention, yet in retrospect I can see that I “earned” my own abuse: nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.

In my book, dating a girl for a period of a year without being sure about marrying her isn’t unethical. We haven’t discussed the topic, so I haven’t led her on unfairly. That’s the whole point of dating: to figure out if you want to continue and move to the next step.

What about you, Chels? If I recall correctly, you’re dating a man who hasn’t married you. He may be considering marrying you. Do you think he’s behaving unethically? If he’s still mulling it over in his mind and has a 50% chance of offering to marry you, is he behaving incorrectly? If you’re engaged but not married, it means he’s not 100% committed. Does that make it unethical?

In my late thirties I’ve reached the state of being a cantankerous old fart! My frame is this: I’m doing with my life what I want to do with my life. I don’t care what anyone thinks. If I’m dating a girl and she thinks my path is cool and I think she’s cool and she wants to come along on my path, it’s great. Otherwise, I’m going it alone until I find another woman. I’ve realized that it doesn’t matter: if you have clarity about your life goal and direction and have some success with it, there will always be a woman willing to come along with you. There is never a shortage of women for a man with clarity. The real shortage in this world is of men who themselves have clarity and direction.

The problem with you is that you just want to throw stones. Disliking the message, you want to attack the messenger.

Absolutely, 100%. I’m not with my bf for his money, I have plenty of my own, and money doesn’t lead to happiness (something I’ve learned the hard way).

As well, I believe in marriage for life, through the good but also through the bad, and I’m completely against divorce and I’ve made this clear on this blog over and over again.I have a rather extreme position on divorce, and that’s not something I could do (again, something I’ve learned the hard way).

No, you aren’t just saying anything. You were the reason I originally started commenting on here under the name Anon because of your obvious hard on for attention, and your clear as day desire to shame, shame, shame. It is made plainly clear by your final words that even though she’s never asked about it, its still ***also*** Greenlander’s fault.

I don’t think men are required to release their dating intentions. Girls get used for sex by high value men with offering commitment, girls use beta orbiters for fixing their problems and giving them hope if they only work a bit harder to please them. Both string each other along under some doubtful hope. In a non-game setting guys buy girls presents, pay for dates, invest him just to be LJBFed. I think moral considerations are in vain unless you want to be an easy exploit.

I think both men AND women are required to release their dating intentions IF asked. For example, if one asked the other to tell them where their relationship is going, if its outcome will be marriage, then the other person should be honest with them and tell them the answer.

And yes, unless completely devoid of morality, the right thing, when asked, would be to say the truth.

Why would you lie and why would you waste both of your time? Unless both of you are just interested in serial monogomy.

1.) If you tell women your intention you are less mysterious, she has figured you out and you successful killed gina tingle! And because if you tell her your intentions first you DLV her because it appears you are chasing her, and, thus, you are less attractive.

2.) At the moment maybe I am ‘happy’ and I want to marry you but you are still in the testing period. And as all women I may keep my intentions to be subject to change. It seems women want to push men keeping their promises but they can bailout at any moment.

3.) If I may get ‘free’ sex in a relationship why should somebody say I don’t want to marry you if I can just keep them stringing along serially. If you say the truth you may have one soft harem member less.

4.) You may think you waste their prime years. But women like to take higher risk and pin down that alpha instead of taking the safe beta. Where there is risk, there is pay-off but there is also waste of time.

” I’m considering marrying her, and may do so if I don’t expatriate. Or maybe I’ll expatriate to a country that has marriage 1.0 and ask her to come with me.”

Only you can make the decision whether to marry her or not GL. You seem unsure and hesitant .In my opinion , for what it’s worth, (lol) don’t marry her. Unless you are deeply in love with her, it’s not worth the risk. Maybe expatriating would be a better option for you.

“She has her choice, too. She’s an attractive woman: if she thinks I’m not worth her time, she’s free to dump me and chase some other guy”

And this

“In my book, dating a girl for a period of a year without being sure about marrying her isn’t unethical. We haven’t discussed the topic, so I haven’t led her on unfairly. ”

The above clarifies your position, and I think you make a fair point GL.
She has a choice indeed, and you have not lead her on, I agree.

But free-market capitalism did not cause feminism. If it did, feminism would have been around for 5000 thousand years, as free-market capitalism, often in its most brutal form, has been the norm for most of human existence.

Even assuming this is true, one could argue that while free-market capitalism may not have “caused” feminism, it did make feminism inevitable due to technological advance. You explicitly point out in your “Misandry Bubble” article that the first and third “Sirens” of feminism were easy contraception (the Pill, condoms, etc.) and household technology (“inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce.”) The only reason feminism hasn’t existed for the previous 5000k years of “unfettered capitalism” is that technology hadn’t reached the point to make it feasible. I assume you believe that capitalism enhances technological advancement–and if I’m incorrect about this, I will happily concede that I’ve missed your point and retract this statement. However, if I am correct, then free-market capitalism is at least partly responsible for the Pill, other female-friendly gadgets, and so on, which makes it partially responsible for two of the Sirens you describe, making it, in the final analysis, partly responsible for feminism by extension.

Also, I get the feeling that you may be simplifying Dragnet’s point, somewhat. If I’m misinterpreting you, Dragnet, I sincerely apologize, so don’t hesitate to correct me, but I think you’re saying that ‘free-market capitalism’ contributes to misandry/feminism–i.e you’re not saying it “caused” feminism, or even that it’s the sole or primary source of misandry. TFH may be correct in saying that free-market capitalism didn’t “cause” feminism, but I don’t get the feeling that’s what you’re arguing. Again, though I could be wrong, pardon me if I am.

When a main gains confidence and poise, he learns that it is his job as a man to control the frame and set the tone. Women are deeply attracted to these men men, and in the modern SMV keeping a facade of “I am the prize, and if you want to be with me you need to come on my path.” My girlfriend really wants to ask some of the questions you are asking: I can just tell by her reactions to the things I say. She’s just afraid of the answers. In my mindset, that’s good, because it means that In control the frame. But she’s skittish, so when to play the “beta” card and when the play the “alpha” card is the key to maintaining hand.

Kathy, I want to reiterate that I have no personal vendetta against you, or against Chels, or against anyone else who disagrees with me on these blogs. I’m just living my life how I see fit. I think it’s a mistake in life to take everything so personally. I move through the world on the path that I’m on without apology or justification So, I appreciate that you, as a result of your life experience, have something to add to the discussion and a perspective that I don’t have. And I have the same opinion about Chels: nothing is personal: I’m just seeking honest intellectual discussion. I think it’s a mistake to take things personally, and I believe that you can point out the fallacies in another person’s argument without having it be a personal attack.

I realize on some level that my SMV has increased significantly, and it’s sometimes disorienting. I spent so many years in my twenties being so beta, and now I realize that it’s very easy to just turn the frame around. Women are often attributed as being more intuitive, but a guy with game can run circles with thrm.

Honestly, I don’t think I’m as bad as you think. I’m just trying to find the best mate I can in the era of “combat dating,” And if I’m accomplished in the world of men and have something going for me, why should I settle for a woman who doesn’t tickle my fancy…

You should go visit PMAFT’s blog, where he was stringing along two women for months, had a threesome with them, and then broke up with them.

You left out some of the best parts. After I broke up with them, they begged and begged and pleaded and begged some more. Eventually I did sort of take them back to be part of my harem of chicks I’m stringing along to keep them from marrying and ruining the lives of betas who don’t know better.

At what point do you think it is unethical to date a girl? If the likelihood that I’ll give a marriage proposal to a particular woman is 25%, is it unethical for me to date her? What about 50%? If I’m 99% sure that I’ll ask this girl to marry me, is it unethical because I’m not 100% sure?

Even if you’re 100% sure you’re not going to marry a chick, it’s still ethical to date her. By stringing her along you’re protecting some guy who has never heard of the manosphere, game, or mens rights from getting married and getting divorced against his will later.

“My girlfriend really wants to ask some of the questions you are asking: I can just tell by her reactions to the things I say. She’s just afraid of the answers.”

I thought as much, but didn’t want to push it with you .

“Honestly, I don’t think I’m as bad as you think.”

Honestly , I don’t think that you are as bad as you think that I think that you are. 😉

” I’m just trying to find the best mate I can in the era of “combat dating,” And if I’m accomplished in the world of men and have something going for me, why should I settle for a woman who doesn’t tickle my fancy…”

I can’t argue with that.
It’s also why I say again don’t marry her if you don’t really love her deeply. You will be doing yourself a great disservice.

I have already weighed in on this topic, but it seems to have been missed by those blaming Capitalism or businessmen for misandry/feminsim. Dragnet has persisted in assigning the same full moral culpability for misandry to businessmen as much as man-haters, but hasn’t yet addressed my rebuttal of this position.

hurpaderp uses an even weaker argument than that; one that is dismissed by applying reductio ad absurdum.

hurpaderp’s argument is based on a solid foundation: Capitalism leads to prosperity and technological progress, thereby improving the lives of people. Some specific improvements may interface with other aspects of society and have undesirable side effects akin to drug interactions.

For example, widely available contraception leads to a disregard for the traditional ways of keeping sexuality properly managed, and the loss of these cultural traditions leads to massive social problems.

All of that is fine to acknowledge. The problem arises when attempting to go backwards in this chain of causation to assign blame for the final outcome. Capitalism is so far back in the chain that it is an arbitrary place to stop.

We could go all the way back to “the emergence of the genus Homo” as a cause in the chain, and it would be no more or less valid. Going this many steps backwards to blame Capitalism for all of the bad unintended ripple effects of human progress isn’t useful, even if technically correct.

Even if the cause is closer to the effect, the total benefits to humanity cannot be discounted.

When it was discovered that bacteria were gaining resistance to the original antibiotics, they were not content to simply come to the (correct) conclusion that penicillin had caused this unintended side effect. Penicillin was not banned from use, but usage was adjusted and new antibiotics were developed.

In the same manner, this period of testing out big government feminism on a civilization-wide scale will end and societies that wish to reap the benefits of human and economic freedom will adjust their social structures and economies accordingly. Despite Capitalism having the unfortunate side effect of making horrendously inefficient social and economic policies work for a while, there is nothing about it that inherently requires misandry or a brainless mass of female consumer-bots.

The problem arises when attempting to go backwards in this chain of causation to assign blame for the final outcome. Capitalism is so far back in the chain that it is an arbitrary place to stop. We could go all the way back to “the emergence of the genus Homo” as a cause in the chain, and it would be no more or less valid. Going this many steps backwards to blame Capitalism for all of the bad unintended ripple effects of human progress isn’t useful, even if technically correct…there is nothing about [capitalism] that inherently requires misandry or a brainless mass of female consumer-bots.

Sure, and you’ll notice I didn’t argue against the beneficial aspects of capitalism. The problem is, it seems difficult to imagine “misandry” and “brainless masses of female consumer-bots” going away in a purely capitalistic context. Sure, if we remove government intervention that might solve some of the problems, but 2 out of the 4 sirens, as I mentioned above, are technological rather than governmental. For instance, the only way you’d be able to get women to stop riding the cock carousel is by either reducing the availability and effectiveness of contraception (which would be interfering with the free market for those products) or by making sex outside marriage, female infidelity, etc. punishable by law, which would require an expansion in the punitive powers of the government.

Most of the problems would be massively dissipated into irrelevance- if not solved – by removing government influence. The specific things governments are doing create the landscape where females can access a hypergamic utopia with far fewer consequences affecting them than would naturally happen.

hurpadurp: “Sure, if we remove government intervention that might solve some of the problems, but 2 out of the 4 sirens, as I mentioned above, are technological rather than governmental.”

A fair point about TFH’s four-sirens concept. I’ll allow him to address this since you already asked him earlier.

hurpadurp: “For instance, the only way you’d be able to get women to stop riding the cock carousel is by either reducing the availability and effectiveness of contraception”

I’m not sure if this would be necessary or not to stop most women from attempting the carousel. For a number of other sex-related issues, I’d say no, but for this specific idea, I’d have to give it some consideration. It’s important to isolate exactly what attitudes and behaviors the pill itself causes. Attempting to trade sex for alpha attention may very well be a direct implication of the pill.

Even so, this type of behavior can be greatly tempered by allowing women to suffer the natural consequences of unwedded motherhood. The costs of sex are much higher to women than men, absent an artificial apparatus to protect them.

“by making sex outside marriage, female infidelity, etc. punishable by law, which would require an expansion in the punitive powers of the government.”

The natural consequences of indiscriminate sex are more than adequate to create a cultural climate that discourages this behavior, while allowing responsible individuals the freedom to (privately) do what they want. Artificially high costs are unnecessary and unjust.

Thanks very much for your reasoned and thoughtful response, sir. I think I ought to hold back from saying much more at the moment too, since as I mentioned above, I want to be absolute sure I’m representing Dragnet’s point correctly, so it’d be good to let him have his say before I say anything more. In response to this, though:

The costs of sex are much higher to women than men, absent an artificial apparatus to protect them.

Absolutely true, but again, technology is increasingly minimizing these risks. In addition to contraception, you also have abortion–where in primitive times, women had to resort to either outright infanticide or “herbal remedies” and things like that, these days it’s easy to just go to Planned Parenthood or something and have a licensed doctor give you a safe and effective abortion. This is only going to become more and more salient as time and technology march on; contraception and abortion will both become more and more effective and cheap even without any sort of government interference or subsidy–scientists simply want to producing products which are increasingly effective, and this holds true for contraception and abortion. Women are no longer as likely to be condemned to single motherhood as they were in the years before today’s increasingly speedy technological advancement, which means that even if there wasn’t welfare, other govt. handouts/”artificial apparatus” supporting single moms, etc. the costs of sex would still be a good deal lower than they had been in “traditional” times

Throwing my hat into the “what is the real cause?” discussion. For me cheap and easilz accessible energy has been the driving force behind most of the technological, societal, cultural and political changes during the laste decades. Patriarchy/civilization is the most efficient solution of handling the world and human instincts, but is not (or does not seem) necessary when ressources are plentiful.

You should go visit PMAFT’s blog, where he was stringing along two women for months, had a threesome with them, and then broke up with them.

It’s beyond me to understand the mindset of a woman who would go along with having a threesome with her boyfriend’s other girlfriend. Just in asking, seriously asking, he’s given you a road map of your future, and it has one sign: Dead End. You are one of many roads traveled, and not especially a favorite. The fact that they knew about each other indicates that to them anything was better than nothing.

Anything is not better than nothing.

Even if you have no chance of ever marrying or being significantly important to any man, you can be significantly and permanently important to other people: a good friend, an older neighbor, a Little Sister. I’d put my time in there. Heck, my dogs prefer me to anyone else.

It’s beyond me to understand the mindset of a woman who would go along with having a threesome with her boyfriend’s other girlfriend.

Ah, there are more strange things under the sun than any of us can imagine, grerp. You cannot project your own attitudes and POV onto another person and always have it be accurate. It could be that the woman would have been fine with a twosome with the other girlfriend, leaving the boyfriend out of the picture completely, but was too up-tight to make that happen for herself. Maybe it gave her cover to do something she always wanted to do and avoid responsibility by having a man to blame it all on.

Of all the reasons for the breakdown of relationships, I think the Internet will surface as one of the largest. Go to http://www.truewifeconfession.com/2011/09/true-wife-confessions-42-ultimate.html and read confession #425, particularly. Heck, read the whole thing. Any married woman or any woman who would want to get married should wish that site didn’t exist. I don’t know how any man could read too many pages there and come away with any ability at all to trust the woman he is or wants to get married to actually likes him or can be trusted.

Anyway, one or both of PMAFT’s girlfriends might be of the same persuasion as the woman who wrote confession # 425 –

I am bisexual and I always have been. I just never told you. I just let you think that I like to swing because it’s the only way that I can fuck women without being sneaky about it.

@AntiFeministTech: Why is it called ‘Sunday Morning Night Club’? Isn’t that just day game where you run a counter con on women who want to trap a feminized provider beta?

@grerp: I think many women have lower inhibitions to play with same sex people than man. And if women feel safe backed beta a beta hubby, government etc. and you frame the experience appropriately and as exciting while they can deny any responsibility some women will go along with your idea.

“Anyway, one or both of PMAFT’s girlfriends might be of the same persuasion as the woman who wrote confession # 425 – ”

Nope, just your plain old garden variety sluts, knowing that their biological clocks are ticking vying for PMAFT’s attention in the hope of snaring him in marriage. Each so desperate that they would kill their own mothers for it.. A threesome? Just a walk in the park for these loser tarts. A means to an end.

One of those sluts even tried to encourage PMAFT to attend church with her! Ha ha ha. Oh the irony.

It’s beyond me to understand the mindset of a woman who would go along with having a threesome with her boyfriend’s other girlfriend.

On top of that my “other girlfriend” is her best friend.

@AntiFeministTech: Why is it called ‘Sunday Morning Night Club’? Isn’t that just day game where you run a counter con on women who want to trap a feminized provider beta?

Because it’s running day game at church. It doesn’t necessarily involve running a counter con on women who want to trap a provider beta (but that is what I am using it for). Although I’m sure all the single women there are there to look for provider betas so effectively that is what it is.

Wow, just “stumbledupon” your blog. I’m 41 yrs old and just celebrated 20 yrs of marriage and I do relate your statement, “To me my wife is just as beautiful at 37 as the day I married her when she was only 20. I would try to explain this, but I really don’t have the words.” Not only have I “rejoiced in the wife of my youth” but her “breasts have satisfied me at all times”. Here’s a similar quote I sent to her on our 20th anniversary:
“Youth is a flower of which love is the fruit; happy is he who, after having watched its silent growth, is permitted to gather and call it his own.”

You cannot project your own attitudes and POV onto another person and always have it be accurate.

This is true. I suppose I simply do not understand a significant percentage of people today at all, even ones in my own culture, if there is still “a culture” here in the U. S. of A. It’s starting to feel like it’s just 300 million people all doing their own thing.

“You left out some of the best parts. After I broke up with them, they begged and begged and pleaded and begged some more. Eventually I did sort of take them back to be part of my harem of chicks I’m stringing along to keep them from marrying and ruining the lives of betas who don’t know better.

I’m also in the process of getting a third chick to string along from a Sunday Morning Nightclub”

Good Stuff PMAFT. I just posted this comment over at your blog on your post,

Doing God’s Work:

“Lol. Indeed.
As I said here a few months back, you are certainly doing a great service in removing the sluts from the streets. You are giving the decent guys who, unlike yourself, DO want to settle down and marry, a better chance of meeting a worthwhile wife.

Wow! A woman’s sexual/marriage market value? Do men really rate women only as being this two-dimensional? Who determines this, men? I find that hard to believe. What an absurd notion. What about her worth as a person? This is the first time I’ve heard that. I read no further.

Reblogged this on M3 and commented:
The indelible Dalrock wrote a post last year that I can really relate to in terms of experience. The takeaway for me was this line “To unmarried men who wish to marry, use great caution and be sure to find a woman who is truly worthy of marriage.” Obviously, i threw caution to the wind. An excellent read nonetheless.

Alpha and Beta are meaningless concepts even from this horrific appeal to tradition that gamesters use just like paleo-diet enthusiasts. Watch how many so-called “Alpha thugs” and his harem could form a successful tribe to defend itself from a band of “beta” males. They would spill his brain-matter on the edge of a rock along with his flayed offspring and divide the chattel women among themselves.”

This is me, YBM proving to whoever follows the link at ***redacted website*** that indeed I wrote this post last year under a fake name. I even still remember the e-mail address I used for it.

I think you guys (Dalrock, Athol, Dave, etc.) were extremely lucky to find a woman who was young and had submissive tendencies in your near-youth. My ex-gf was brutal when I was nice, but when I was “bad”, or showing alpha traits of “I dont need you”, she would became insecure and annoying. I tried to tailor the alpha and beta mix, but the constant calibration was just too much work. We dated for three years and I never felt like I could count on her for anything.
Now, I’m single and childless, at an age where my parents were winding down their family of 8. I dont seem to meet any good prospects, seeing so many traits of my ex-gf in these women. I’m also too proud to settle for a disillusioned carousel watcher since I feel women treat me like a meal ticket instead of a man. I’ve tried dating younger (20-25) but I think I missed that boat.

At 38 I am still unmarried, I guess you could say I squandered my youth with men who didn’t care. But that’s where you’re incorrect. I had a cracker of a time in my youth and was (and still am) a tearing beauty still loved and admired by men and women who knew me at my most beautiful. I am ok with not being married as I am still getting to know myself. I love my partner who I have known since I was 16 but only reconnected with recently and he says that I am no different to the wild one I was then. So ladies in your 30s, unmarried or not, you are still beautiful, you are still yourself. Love yourself, be confident, show compassion, empathy and kindness and the men will still flock. There is still hope. Don’t listen to society about “the effects of aging” and rub off that orange fake tan. Wear colour. Smile. Laugh lines are sexy (I know, I’ve been told often enough). Exercise. Get therapy if you have to but hold your head up knowing that as you age, you are still gorgeous no matter what society says.

“At 38 I am still unmarried, I guess you could say I squandered my youth with men who didn’t care. But that’s where you’re incorrect.

HAMSTERLATION: Oh my GOD I’m 38 and still not married. I googled “advice for how a woman can get married after 30 when her ovaries are raisins” and I found this Dalrock dude’s website. Man, am I in deep shit on this. Anyway, you’re damn right I wasted my youth on men who didn’t care, because if any of them had cared, they’d have wifed me up. And the “unmarried” part is damn important. If it weren’t, I wouldn’t have left this comment telling you all about my awesomely awesome awesomeness in order to hide my pathetically pathetic patheticness.

“I had a cracker of a time in my youth and was (and still am) a tearing beauty still loved and admired by men and women who knew me at my most beautiful.”

HAMSTERLATION: I was hawwwt and I screwed all kinds of beautiful men who paid for my drinks, meals and hotel accommodations, and who took me on all expense paid vacations. For some reason it never lasted more than a few months. Can’t figure that out. But I’m still hawwwt even though I’m way, way past my expiration date.

“I am ok with not being married as I am still getting to know myself.”

HAMSTERLATION: I am still loving the hookup life. I want to get married, but I don’t want to do the things I would have to do. I mean, all that icky commitment and responsibility and having to be answerable to a man and stuff. And besides, “getting to know myself” includes every guy I know being able to find my G-spot.

“I love my partner who I have known since I was 16 but only reconnected with recently and he says that I am no different to the wild one I was then.”

HAMSTERLATION: I knew that Facebook account would come in handy. My old high school boyfriend, the washed up football jockhead, the one with the bald head and beerbelly – he still wants to fuck me! Damn that guy could lay it down. Too bad he’s “meh” now, but he gives me the validation and affirmation I desperately need.

“So ladies in your 30s, unmarried or not, you are still beautiful, you are still yourself. Love yourself, be confident, show compassion, empathy and kindness and the men will still flock. There is still hope. Don’t listen to society about “the effects of aging” and rub off that orange fake tan. Wear colour. Smile. Laugh lines are sexy (I know, I’ve been told often enough). Exercise. Get therapy if you have to but hold your head up knowing that as you age, you are still gorgeous no matter what society says.”

HAMSTERLATION: If you’re over 30, and you’re married, you better keep that guy for all he’s worth, because trust me – you don’t want to end up like me. You don’t want to be trolling FB for old boyfriends to find someone, anyone, willing to validate and affirm you. And if you’re not married, well, I guess you can head out for one last carousel ride. I mean, guys will tell me ANYTHING to get in my granny panties. They’ll tell me stupid shit like “You’re gorgeous” and “Laugh lines are sexy” and “You don’t look a day over 22!” And I lap it up and spread my legs for them because, well, I need to feel pretty. I need the attention and I need someone, anyone, to at least act like they care about me.

An analysis, without changing one word of Tara’s comment shows the following:

I am Still unmarried
I squandered my youth
Men didn’t care
Cracker
Tearing
Not being married .. getting to know myself
The wild one I was then
There is still hope
The effects of aging
Get therapy
You age … no matter what society says

I’ve been aware of this reality (that stated in the blog above), even though I haven’t experienced it. It’s clear that a woman never ages in her husband’s eyes. But women who spend their youth being ‘independent’, they start off their marriages a little less advantaged, it’s too bad they can’t go back in time and give themselves some advice.

My husband and I were married when we were eighteen and nineteen, this year will be our 23rd anniversary, he calls me “wife of my youth,” (which I love) and I call him Mr. Awesome, because he is. I’m cherished by him because I gave my heart (and the rest of me 😉 ) to him, and only him, when I was young. We have shared more than half of our lives with each other and I hope to grow old with him. Marrying Mr. Awesome was the best decision of my life. He’s an amazing person. (BTW, the next verse is nice too “A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.”… he takes the breasts part very seriously 😉 )
I’m definitely biased but I think a whole life shared with one you love beats a solitary-but-independent life every time.

Thanks so much for this post, Dalrock. I have been married for over 20 years to the wife of my youth and I posted a Facebook love sonnet for her a few weeks ago about, among other topics, her stretch marks- battle scars earned in the fight for life and legacy. The guys at The Red Pill thought I was way over the top but it is so true! I can close my eyes and touch her skin and still see her at that slim, 20 something young girl I fell in love with so many years ago.

On another point, the female invasion of this space is picking up pace and it really angers me when women peddle the same lies that are so obvious (and which I believed for so long). Women want their husbands to treat them like princesses. Umm.. no they don’t. Women want a badass husband who treats them nice, but only rarely. You can see the thought process of these women and how they are imagining the apex Alpha treating them nicely while they have absolutely no self awareness that they get completely turned off when any man except the uber-Alpha treats her with “respect” and solicitation. These SAME women frivorce husbands who are “nice” all the while telling them they need to be MORE nice.

The truth has set us free. You may ask in the words of an infamous judge: “What is truth” so I say to you, truth is not what you believe. Truth is what you can observe with your own senses. I have a hard time believing that people like Jennifer, Tara, Kathy, or especially Chels really think that women honestly go for “nice guys.” Why do these ‘social conventions’ ALWAYS further the feminine imperative, deliberately confuse men, and optimize female hypergamy? I think there is evidence that women know EXACTLY what they are doing so how about you ladies fuck off and try to learn something rather than continuing to peddle your filthy lies. We are not playing your cruel little mind games any longer. We “Get It” now and you can all go to Sheol.

I thinks it’s incredible how people can take the bible so far out of context…not taking into consideration who’s writing it, when it was and who God’s talking to. Of course he’s going to address the inappropriateness of his daughters to the daughters being inappropriate and as for a reminder to those who our classy and do the best they can to boost the ego of the modern man. For those who take a verse about an angry woman to teach “us gals” how we’re imasculating men, Inc engaging to the point God prefers us WOMENTO be submissive to the “man” is absurd! I could pull many verses when God’s rather was directed at priest and the same verses you use to put “woman/wives “in their place”-I may see as him (not:Malachi-read it for yourselves) telling the MAN to stop bringing treachery to the wives of their youth.
Like dang! She’s a precious holy gift and if you see “empowerment” the use of the word in general as some sort of feminist action bashing men….you what? Are saying because women refuse to be submissive to the man’s will entirely we are defiling marriage sanctity. I think if we destroy the world. We do it together. I’m a traditional woman who values the bible deeply and believes in the values of marriage. A women being reverent and trusting allowing her husband to lead but not because she’s less than but because he made us confident”EMPOWERED” TEACHABLE.To see one verse and all the ones around it. I find it fascinating all the metaphors similes Father uses.:)